DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
just saw this film at resfest and was floored. i've never been a huge fan of scratching, but this film had me hooked from the getgo. it's listed as a documentary, but never really felt like one. (can't remember the last time i had so much fun watching a documentary). it has a style and an energy that is refreshing, insightful, and never too preachy. the production values were up there too. (shot on film with cool cuts and an amazing soundtrack). overall a smart, entertaining, and enlightening piece.

Sentiment: positive
Once again, Doctor Who delivers the goods by the bucket load. It has humour ("You're just making it up as you go along!" "Yup, but I do it brilliantly"), action, monsters (in this case still more kick-ass cybermen), tragedy and scare tactics. In short, just what the doctor ordered (pun intended). The way that the emotions move from one to the other is done so well that there is no feeling of "get on with it". So, chalk up 3 out of the last 4 episodes that have made you laugh, then made you cry, and made you go "eek".

In terms of character development, this is clearly the clincher for Noel Clarke's Mickey (and Ricky). Being one of the Doctor's companions, you know that he will do the right thing, and may even suspect the manner that he does it. However, it is still an emotional wrench when he confirms his future path.

While "The rise of the Cybermen" had more of the sinister build up to terror, "The Age of Steel" is an all out blast. Like "Alien" compared to "Aliens" - both true classics, but in different ways. Can the series keep it up at this level? Let's hope so.

Sentiment: positive
Absolutely the very first film that scared me to death. I happened catch it when my older brother(r.i.p.) was watching it. It was on a black and white TV and not really a good picture but it got me interested. Shortly after, my folks bought a color set and, as luck would have it, The Million Dollar Movie was showing it one Sunday.

I had forgotten most of the plot, but it did not take long to catch up...and I got so scared I had a hard time sleeping that night! I mean sure it was just a movie but it involved a creature that not only came from space, but you could not hear it, or see it...and once it got hold of you it was too late. Even now, after all this time it still sends a shiver up my spine. A true classic, and even better a classic that I have seen scare the pants off a new generation!

Long live The Blob!

Sentiment: positive
Absolutely amazing! Humor, up-beat music and an anti-war message make this probably the best movie I have ever seen.

First of all, I love how clever this movie is, particularly in the Vietnam part of the plot. It's interesting how they make the army officials enforcing the draft look ridiculous. Follow that with the serious situation of the actual war, and then the conclusion (which leaves me seething with anger at the war); and yet there is absolutely no violence on the screen. Wow.

Also, the music is really cool. But what is very unique in this musical (as opposed to Evita, or Wizard of Oz, for example) is that the lyrics don't tell the story. The mood does (along with the visuals and between-songs-dialog): "Donna" is an upbeat song which emphasizes the happy mood, whereas "Flesh Failures" has a driving, intense beat, in a minor key.

Also, I notice the LSD scene is not very flattering. Now I'm definitely not going to do drugs (not that I ever intended to).

All things considered, this is an amazing movie. The only negative comment I could say is that it's sometimes hard to hear the dialog. But who cares? 10/10 stars!

Sentiment: positive
The film was very outstanding despite the NC-17 rating and disturbing scenes. In reality things like this do happen and that is why this movie shows a lot of it. It all starts with Maya (Rosario Dawson in superb performance) whose recently started attending college has everything going well for her. She meets Jared (Chad Faust in a terrific performance) at a frat party who turns out to be a real gentleman and sweet. He invites her out to dinner. They look at the stars from a bridge and they end going to his apartment. They talk and takes her to the basement were they become flirtatious with each other. She tries to put an end to it, but he rapes her. This incident scars her. She goes to a club meets a bartender/DJ Adrian (greatfully played by Marcus Patrick) who sees that she is getting to drunk and helps before she goes to far. They strike a friendship. He also does drugs and Maya starts using as well. In other words introduces her to a different world. She starts going back to school and working as TA (Teaching Assistant) and spots Jared as one of the students. While the students are taking a Midterm, she catches Jared cheating. Jared tries to smooth talk Maya, but she still has the upper hand decides to invite him to her place. Will history repeat itself? Or Will Maya have a surprise for Jared? You watch the movie. Excellent A. Rosario Dawson portrays the role with focus and endurance. Chad Faust does not like he can be a rapist, but he does a terrific job as Jared. Marcus Patrick is very brilliant the man who saves Maya and coaches her into a new world. This film deserves an award.

Sentiment: positive
Really, it's nothing much. I only recommend watching it if; 1.) You're a big fan of any of the main stars. 2.) If you really want to check out the first time Lucille Ball was seen with red hair.

4 out of 10 stars

Sentiment: negative
I couldn't agree more with Nomad 7's and I A HVR's comments. A perfect laid back Sunday morning movie. The humor is subtle (exact opposite of "slapstick" as one misguided commenter noted).

But what always ceases to amaze me is how often I find myself wanting to come back to this movie over and over. I originally copied this movie onto VHS about 12 years ago when it was premiered on one of those Pay Cable free weekend previews(HBO maybe?). Had never heard of it previously. Don't know why it wasn't marketed that well. ?? When DVD's were released en mass, it was one of the first movies I replaced. A great combination of cast and writing. Plus, the back drop of Montana wilderness doesn't hurt things either (beautiful).

It's probably not the type of comedy for everyone, but what is? If Adam Sandler type stuff is up your alley, this probably won't be your cup of tea. This movie needs your full attention. The humor is mostly in the dialog.

I believe my next viewing will probably be about my 12th. But I still know that when it gets to the scenes like the one where the hoods of the police cars start blowing off, I'm going to loose it (Ed O'Neill's face is PRICELESS!). Recommended 110%.

Sentiment: positive
All right, I'll grant you that some of the science in "Doppelganger" (or "Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun") is kind of dopey.The idea of an entire planet existing undetected (because we can't see it on the other side of our sun) doesn't hold up at all - any Astronomy 101 student knows that another planet the size of Earth would cause gravitational perturbances in the motions of other planets. That's how astronomers deduced the existence of Pluto, after all, and that's how they find comets and asteroids and moons on a regular basis.

And the idea that a mirror image Earth somehow evolved in almost perfect parallel to our Earth, down to English speaking scientists and human counterparts for each human born on our Earth...that takes things out of 'hard science' fiction and into "Twilight Zone" territory. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it requires a major suspension of critical thinking to accept and enjoy. 

But man, this movie knocked my socks off as an adolescent. I was still used to fairly cheerful, upbeat science fiction films when the hero won through in the end - even "2001" could be interpreted as having an 'upbeat' ending. 

But in this case: Thinnes attempted to dock with his orbiting mothership so he could return to his own Earth, only to be bounced back out of his docking berth (Something about 'the polarities not being reversed because his 'doppelganger' wasn't doing the same thing. Apparently Thinnes' 'doppelganger' had decided he was happy in his new home.) Thinnes' ship started the descent back to the CounterEarth launch site, and I was certain that he would somehow get the damaged craft to land safely and try again, armed with the new info that would let him and his backers succeed. He was The Hero after all, and the Hero always wins through in the end. 

Instead, Thinnes couldn't maintain control of the crippled craft, and the ship's subsequent crash into the launch site was so horrible and devastating that it killed everyone (except for the chief project leader) and destroyed all records of the project and Thinnes' existence. Thinnes never got to go home, and he perished uselessly, his secrets never revealed. 

Except for the Planet Of the Apes series, I had never seen such a sad and downbeat ending, and it always stuck in my mind - especially the ferocious devastation of the crash scene near the beginning of the move (you knew that spaceship was NEVER going to fly again!) and the one at the very end. 

I'd love to see this movie again, and see how well it held up over the years.

Sentiment: positive
Every time I've seen this movie I get the same impression: some parts of it are so amazingly stupid/bad that they crack me up, they aren't intentional, and there are a lot of them; the rest is just plain bad, stupid and/or irrelevant. A movie like Evil Dead gets credit for being bad at it's own expense because it's the intended result-it' stupid and cheesy because Sam Raimi succeeded at what he was trying to do. This movie doesn't have that excuse, it's stupid and cheesy because the filmmakers failed so miserably. The crap result gets heaped on top of the crap writing and crap performances to make it a shame that the lowest rating a movie can be given is one for 'awful.' Watching this movie has the same effect as listening to a Billy Madison essay--"Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it." I should be able to give this movie something around a -5.

Sentiment: negative
Blue Planet... Wow... Where do I begin? The years of hard work paid off in what is, without question, one of the best documentaries ever created.

The sights and sounds presented in Blue Planet, like most documentaries with the Attenborough stamp, are rare and haven't even experienced by most people. That alone should be enough reason to buy this series, especially if you're the curious type who 'wants to know'.

Blue Planet is not a perfect documentary, however. It does get a bit repetitive after the 3rd episode. How many ways can different sea creatures swim, kill, poo, mate, and lay eggs, and do all of these ways really need to be explored? But if you have a deep interest in sea life, this repetition shouldn't become a problem for you at all.

Sentiment: positive
I love Columbo and have seen pretty much all of the episodes but this one undoubtedly ranks as the worst of the lot. A mind-bogglingly tedious, pointless, muddled pile of unwatchable drivel that wastes both the time of the viewing audience and of the acting talents of an exceedingly bored-looking Peter Falk. The 'plot', such as it is, just seems to be made up as the film goes along with not even the slightest hint of the ingredients to the formula that made the show such a brilliant success to start with. One part of the proceedings which I found extremely puzzling ( or possibly annoying ) was Peter Falk's character being introduced to the guests at the wedding as 'Lt' Columbo. If the producers insist on keeping Columbo's first name a secret, why couldn't they have omitted this line altogether as it sounds ridiculous? Like I said, this is the pits and all true Columbo fans would do well to avoid it like the plague.

Sentiment: negative
Unremarkable and unmemorable remake of an old, celebrated English film. Although it may be overly maligned as a total disaster (which it is not), it never builds any tension and betrays its TV origins. Richard Burton sleepwalks through his role, and Sophia Loren's closed (in this movie) face doesn't display much passion, either. (**)

Sentiment: negative
I remember a certain Tuesday, the morning of 18/6/02 to be exact. I was dozed off, trying to convince myself to get out of bed when a horrific explosion was heard. I went to the kitchen where I have a view of several neighborhoods in the southern Jerusalem and saw a pillar of smoke rising from a distant point, the sight of the smoke was followed a minute later by the waling of sirens. I remember rushing to my bedroom, taking out my binoculars, racing back to the kitchen and spotting the image of a glass shattered bus. The bus was still near the pick up station where a terrorist boarded on it and with a single click on a TNT device, murdered 25 passengers, many of whom were on their way to school. The wife of a good friend of mine, sat on the bus at the back row, a seemingly arbitrary and meaningless decision that saved her life.

I'm sure that every Israeli has at least one terror-related memory he wishes he never would have had and it was only a matter of time before someone made a film about it. As it turned out, the movie was about to become a repressed memory of its own.

The film is about a play-write on a dry run, Haim Buzaglo (portrayed by, hmmm, Haim Buzaglo who also wrote and directed the film) that spends the better part of his day conducting staring contests with his blank word processor page. In the meantime, his girlfriend, a field reporter for the Israeli commercial channel, decides to make a piece about a debt ridden ex-army officer. Buzaglo, bored and a bit paranoid due what is medically known as the "what on earth this hot babe is dating me" syndrome, asks a private eye to conduct a stakeout on his girlfriend.

As the detective progresses in his investigation, his observations are permeating into the play and later on, to the lives of its actors. In the meantime, the play metamorphoses from a comic play into an indictment against the aloofness of the Israeli society. As for the movie, well, the movie becomes an exercise in frenzy editing, ensconced in its petty cardboard characters and unreliable dialogs while drifting miles away from the subject it was supposed to deal with in the first place.

When I say "cardboard characters" I refer to the characters that under the writer/director's obsession for a "meaningful" film, were devoid of any genuine dialogs and any shred of reliability. I won't elaborate too much about it. Suffice to say that I'm sure that homeless barefoot male prostitutes rarely go the theater. With the intention to see a play, that is.

This movie, according to Haim Buzaglo himself is the first part of a current agenda trilogy. I sincerely hope that the other two films will be derived from the experiences like the one I wrote about in the beginning of my review as opposed to the secluded world of characters that are anything but existent and a plot that is anything but compelling.

4 out of 10 in my FilmOmeter.

P.S. This movie was a landmark in austerity. It was shot in ten days, all the cast worked for free and the entire cost of the film was about 12,000$ (no, I didn't omit a zero or two, twelve thousand dollars). Makes you wonder why it took 34,000$ to complete Blair witch project.

Sentiment: negative
This crock of doodoo won a award? They must have been desperate for giving out an award for something. This movie reeks of teeny bopper stuff and it made me sick. Thankfully I watched it alongside MST3K's Mike and the bots so it made it bearable. Horrid acting, unsettling mother/daughter moment, silly premise, if you want a bad movie here it is. Be warned though watch it with Mike and the bots or you will suffer.

1 out of 10. I still can't believe it won an award, and the director is defending this *&&^$$#$^&& piece of ^%^%$^$#%@$#@ movie!

Sentiment: negative
In the veins of Jeepers Creepers and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Monster Man surprisingly well-made--though mindless--little horror. Throw in a little buddy-comedy, nice gore and intense scare. It's hard no to say that Monster Man is really entertaining. The low budget seem pretty obvious, but it doesn't effected the presentation of the movie in general and put more big budget horror movies in shame.

Yes, the plot somewhat generic as possible. Pair of friend, Adam (Eric Jungman)and Harley (Justin Urich) are driving cross country to interrupt the wedding of a woman Adam has always loved. While Adam is more nerdy type, Harley is a self-proclaimed ladies man and very offensive loudmouth. Adding a bonus to the plot, then they picked up a sexy hitchhiker, Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Things turn into nightmare when a monster truck with scary face drive stalking them. When dead body starts counting, they must do the race against the time before their own life on risk.

The plot is obviously reminiscent of many prior famous horror movies, but Michael Davis as the writer and director succeed in keeping the tension. The scare is build well enough, where characterization is never be the best, but fairly okay. The script also littered with comedies that works for the funny moments and they quite enjoyable rather than annoying and also wait for the twist in the finale. It's hilarious and shocking in the same time, which is pretty amusing.

As conclusion, Monster Man surprisingly entertaining. It deserves more attention in the big screen. It proves that big budget doesn't make an effective horror movie, but skill does! Something that the director has shown and delivers.

Sentiment: positive
Nick Millard aka Nick Phillips should have left well-enough alone when he made "Criminally Insane" 10 years before the release of this god-awful waste of time and effort. The fact that the original "Criminally Insane" was less than an hour in length should have clued him into the fact that he had probably milked this storyline for all he was going to get out of it...but instead he opts to use TONS of footage from the original in this one as well, even to the point of recycling the original opening credit sequence! Unfortunately, bringing back the rapidly aging Priscilla Alden did not save this one. What little bit of original footage there was in this flick looks as if it were filmed with a rented hand-held camcorder! If this film cost more than $100 to make I would be very surprised and I would be equally surprised if it made anything close to that amount! Avoid this one and watch the original instead!

Sentiment: negative
Sex is Comedy, though not driven by a fantastically imaginative plot, concentrates effectively on the relationship between film-director and crew during the process of film-making, whilst successfully addressing the dynamics of human relationships and more specifically the issues and problems encountered by actors involved in filming sex scenes. Director, 'Jeanne', features prominently throughout, for it is she who carries the plot forward, in the place of a narrator, and gives us numerous little pearls of wisdom to think about. She is a social commentator, relating to her assistant and others the problems she finds with her new male lead by way of associating him with a masculine stereotype. Their ambiguous relationship typifies something about human nature  the tendency to be fickle. On one hand, the two seem close; when he is not in sight, she claims to hate him. Jeanne also addresses his masculine pride perhaps in a feminist take on things.

The taboo of what constitutes obscenity, is raised: the content of the sex scenes is not considered obscene but beautiful, because it is fakeness which constitutes obscenity - that is the director's justification. This is, however, doubly ironic, for the film we watch is in itself a construct within a construct.

There's more to this film than just relationships, of course. Watching this film is not simply a question of analysing it for the sake of drawing out some sort of meaning. One can delight in the natural lighting which pervades the movie. This makes it realistic and believable. A static camera is sometimes used taking in a heavy composition and at times the camera appears shaky like a home movie. If you're looking for something fun to watch on a Sunday afternoon that isn't too heavy but still leaves you thinking: this is it.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this 1997 movie because I am a fan of Lorenzo Lamas (and of his father, the late Fernando Lamas). In my opinion, Lorenzo looked his best in this film, mostly due to his hairstyle and the preppy wardrobe that were flattering to him.

As the plot progressed, I realized the movie was more than just entertainment or a reason to see a favorite actor. The story was about a ring of serial killers and the attempts of law enforcement to investigate the ring and bring the members to justice. There was adequate suspense, and I believe the violence was necessary to relate the story to the viewer.

At the end of the film I was shocked to learn the film is the true account of horrendous murders that occurred in Utah. Furthermore, Lorenzo and his leading lady were portraying actual FBI agents who solved the disappearances of many young women and contributed to the apprehension of the ring. I believe the film is worthwhile as it informs the public about the dangers and capabilities of the criminal element.

Sentiment: positive
This, the direct-to-video death rattle of the Tremors series, features sixty inspired seconds (sawblade: you'll know it when you see it) and more tedium and filler than you can shake a stick at. Tremors 4 was obviously shot on a cripplingly low budget. That means they only had enough special effects mojo for three or four minutes of precious worm-on-human violence, tops. The lackluster, cliche-spouting cast and hackneyed writing ensure that the remaining hour and a half of the Tremors 4 experience feels at least fifteen thousand years long. Only hardcore Tremors fans will be able to sit through, much less enjoy this film. If you aren't among them- don't bother.

Sentiment: negative
I wasn't planning on watching wasted when I saw the MTV preview but since I had nothing better to do or watch on a Sunday night I watched it.

Wasted was no Requiem for a Dream but it was a very good movie considering it was made by MTV. One thing that drew me to watching it was Summer Pheonix the sister of the late and wonderful River Pheonix stared. I suppose talent runs in the Pheonix family because she was good and so is Jaquien though niether are River. Nick Stahl also gives a great preformance as a junky jock. There isn't much else to say about wasted. It was a dark depressing and insightful look into the lives of three small town junkies. I recomend it to those who like the subject. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
There are two groups of people...those who love every Fellini movie they see and normal people. While I will admit that I have really enjoyed some of his films, I can also honestly say that I can't stand some of them. My opinion, by the way, is not just some knee-jerk reaction--I have seen most of Fellini's films and have also seen many films by the world's most famous directors. With this in mind, I feel that the most overrated and annoying directors can be both Godard and Fellini. They both have delighted in the bizarre and often unwatchable and yet have received gobs of accolades from reviewers and the "intelligensia", while the average person would never sit through some of their films. Heck, even a person who loves international cinema would generally be left out in the cold when seeing some of these films. So, since only a small clique actually watches their films and they are already predisposed to seeing the directors as geniuses, it's not surprising that their films are so often praised--it's like a cult! If you don't believe me, think about many of Godard's films such as FIRST NAME CARMEN or ALPHAVILLE,...or what about FELLINI SATYRICON or JULIET OF THE SPIRITS? These films abound with boredom, weirdness and incomprehensibility. Now I am NOT saying a film can't be weird (after all I love HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS and SHAOLIN SOCCER), but it must be watchable!

Now on to this movie. Somehow, Fellini has managed to make a story about a sexually compulsive man completely boring and unsexy. This is no small task--it took a lot of work to make this so unwatchable. Instead of cheap sexual thrills, the sex acts are choreographed in a silly and annoying way while the character of Casanova is buried under so much makeup and prosthetics that Donald Sutherland looks like a ghoul. I know some of this must have been Fellini's intention, but many viewers will be left completely bored by this sterile performance--especially since Sutherland's lines are all poorly dubbed into Italian and so he neither looks nor sounds like himself! Unfortunately, when the movie is not wrapped up in these boring sexual escapades, there really isn't anything else to watch.

An interesting note about the first sexual conquest shown in this dull movie is that the actress looks amazingly like a younger version of Fellini's wife, Giulietta Masina. Considering that in addition to this, that in previous decades Fellini had Masina play characters such as a prostitute and a horribly abused woman, it seems like he may have truly hated his wife and was having this acted out on screen. I read a bit about them and their tempestuous relationship and it seems to bear this out as well. This is about the only aspect of this turgid film that I found at all interesting. Don't say I didn't warn you!

Sentiment: negative
I guess Melville intended this movie to be the definition of the cool; it has the cool approach of the late '60s/ early '70s thrillersthe same discrete quirkiness. LE CERCLE ROUGE, a bitter and fatalist story, is also the playground of Delon, Bourvil, Volonté and Montand in defining roles.

Bourvil is a cop who has in his flat three cats and a daily routine. Delon is a hoodlum. Montand is a sick, failed cop. Volonté plays an escaped suspect. LE CERCLE ROUGE is of course far above a heist movie; Melville uses his techniques long wordless detailed depictions of every step of the heist, etc.. Yet this particular action drama is far better than his other moviesand it's very unlikely them by being so much better. The look of LE CERCLE ROUGE is very peculiar to Melville, very Melvillian.

Delon was sharp and cool; Bourvil brings his craft, and Montand makes maybe the finest role of this movie; his performance has an unexpected warmth .

On the other hand, the characters are barely sketched, no more than strictly necessary, and are personae. Or masks; yet the portrayal is inspired, economic but suggestive.

Another of the movies that prove Delon to be a good, a very good actor; and the fact that he's not a genius does not imply that he ought to be despised as a fourth rate actor. He's good, he can bear the proximity of a Bourvil and Montand.

Only ten yrs. before LE CERCLE ROUGE, Melville was doing, towards the end of the '50s, a boring overlong insipid noir pastiche (starring himself)and after only a decade, here he is, in full form, with this quite amazing action drama. Stylistically, it's a success.

Before seeing LE CERCLE ROUGE, I was not a Melvillian fan; now I guess I rather am one.

LE CERCLE ROUGE is a dramanamely, an action drama, one of the most exigent genres. Melville scores.

Sentiment: positive
Mani sir as usual brings out another amazing story with Kannathil Muthamittal. Such an amazing relationship between parents and child is brought out in a beautiful fashion. Mani Sir as usual without much special effects and not much outdoor shoots.(In fact this was the only movie where he went outside India ever..that too just to sri lanka).Mani's class is written all over the movie...and to add to it ARR's music..which is just amazing...Vellai Pookal is one of my most fav songs ever... Maddy,who is what he is in the film industry has impressed a lot too. Starting from alaipayuthey ,to kannathil to ayutha ezuthu to guru.. Mani ratnam has showed to the world what a versatile actor Maddy is. Simran has been really good too. She has showed that she can act too in non-glamorous and character roles. In all an amazing movie. Sad that the tamil public could not appreciate this gr8 movie and it bombed at the box-office....

Sentiment: positive
I'm not a huge fan of Lucio Fulci's films. Most of his 80s gore films had their moments, but often came across as second-rate Dario Argento imitations. With the exception of the entertaining "Zombi" (which was a George Romero imitation), I didn't really enjoy them. I know Italian horror often disregards the plot, but the storyline and characters in his films were just far too thread bare even by the standards. This is why "Don't Torture a Duckling" surprised me. Its actually a very well made film with an engrossing murder mystery. Its possibly the best giallo ever made, only seriously rivaled by Dario Argento's entries into the genre. And unlike Fulci's previous giallo "A Lizard in a Woman's Skin", this never drags.

Fulci's direction here is quite good. He keeps the story moving at a good pace and maintains the viewer's interest throughout. Also, the conclusion to the mystery comes as a complete surprise to the audience. Plus, he adds some clever touches, such as the upbeat soul music during a particularly disturbing graveyard beating sequence. Overall, the violence here is restrained and only used when necessary for the story. The acting is good for the most part also, full of familiar faces from 70s Italian exploitation cinema. Both Thomas Milian and Barbara Bouchet are super cool throughout. The only weak link is Florinda Bolkan, whose performance is just far too over-the-top. Its the only laughable aspect of the film. "Don't Torture a Duckling" definitely comes with my recommendation and may be a good introduction to the giallo subgenre as a whole. (8/10)

Sentiment: positive
What a wasted cast.

This is one of the most disappointing films I've seen.

Usually Roger Ebert does not let me down, but I feel cheated after seeing this movie.

The only thrill is seeing Elizabeth banks in her bra. That is a sorry statement about this movie. It held so much promise, but it was like dry humping a transvestite.

This is self absorbed tripe.

I cannot express deeply enough my bitterness at having sat through this movie, and hope I can forewarn you of the same disappointment.

Sentiment: negative
Admittedly, I watched this piece with already VERY low expectations. Dieter Bohlen is a rather untalented composer parvenu whose lack of talent is only surpassed by the size of his ego.

This was the first cartoon movie that I watched that was 100 per cent humor free. It is rude, offensive, redneck and blatantly anti- women. As such, it is a creation befitting Bohlen, but the average viewer will be rather put off by it. No wonder that it was never shown in a cinema theater: It would've bombed BIG time!

Not even the expense of 6.5 MegaEuros were able to save this utter piece of crap. Save your time... and money!

Sentiment: negative
This is an excellent James Bond movie. Although it is not part of the original and more famous series, and it is a standalone film, it is very well done. Enticing Sean Connery to return to the role he made famous was a stroke of genius, as was titling the movie in a way that references his past vow to not play Bond again. Connery was as great as he was in his earlier 007 appearances. The script is outstanding, as are the photography and the performances. It's the earliest movie I recall with Kim Basinger, who became much more famous after this film; Barbara Carrera was excellent; and Klaus Maria Brandauer was absolutely perfect as the main villain. The frequent references to the aging of Bond and the changing times and attitudes of the British secret service were most humorous. The 007 gadgets equaled those of the other Bond films. The only thing missing was the famous 007 music theme, which, of course, could not be used by this competing production. It was rather amazing to me to be able to see two excellent James Bond movies released in the same year, this one and Octopussy with Roger Moore. An interesting aspect of the film is an emphasis on video games and computer graphics. The early 80's were the first heyday of such things, and the use of them in this film made it a very contemporary movie. The film is actually a different version of Thunderball, updated with newer technology. Regardless of the repeated theme, there are sufficient differences to make it most entertaining. I will watch this one frequently.

Sentiment: positive
When I was 8 years old, and going through my Marx Brothers phase, my father read in the TV Guide that they were showing the Marx Brothers film, "The Big Store" late on Friday night, and set the VCR to tape it for me. When I woke up on Saturday -- due no doubt to a misprint in the TV guide -- my father and I discovered "The Story of Mankind" had been recorded instead.

"The Big Store" was probably one of the least funny of all the Marx Brothers movies and nevertheless it stands as one of the century's finest works of cinema when compared with "The Story of Mankind." I can almost justify TV Guide's error, in that the Marx Brothers -- Groucho, Chico, and Harpo -- appear in both movies. Although in "The Story of Mankind," they are divided up into a series of unrelated scenes: Groucho plays Peter Minuit, Chico plays some guy talking to Christopher Columbus, and Harpo plays Isaac Newton????? Harpo's scene lasts about half a minute; Chico only has two or three lines; Groucho's scene is at least funny, but horribly racially insensitive by today's standards. The rest of the movie doesn't bear mentioning. They trotted out some of the finest actors of the day, and made them recite total garbage. What a disappointment.

TV Guide, I sent you a nice letter, I'm still waiting for an apology.

For the record: "The Big Store" has a wonderful bit of physical comedy with the Marx Brothers on roller skates, and a couple of songs by Virginia O'Brien. I was really looking forward to seeing it.

Sentiment: negative
I want to say the acting is bad, but I think it was the directing that made it so. I never thought much of Highlander (same director) but that one could be blamed on the 80s.

This one however, has no excuses. People get shot while exiting trenches with a man in front of him!? Those kind of mistakes, along with an unclear time line, weird battle tactics, sub-par cutting and poor visual effects, makes this one a sub-par film over all.

Then like so many other have commented, all this American bullshit. The German general being practically scared of his captured American private. Be prepared to swallow a lot of it, although in small doses.

To sum it up, a not horrible but still definitely sub-par war movie in all aspects.

Sentiment: negative
If you are under the age of 6 or 7, then you're going to really enjoy this movie. My youngest daughter is glued to the TV when she watches it. As an adult, I can't stand it!! I'm all up for sequels....when they have a decent storyline. But this is nowhere near up to standard. Please forgive me for slating what is after all a kid's film, but when you have to sit through it nearly every day when your kids who love it so much, you'll understand why. My daughter would watch this film over and over again on the same day if we let her.

I've given this film 4 out of 10 purely for the fact that it keeps my youngest entertained.

Sentiment: negative
i'll admit. i think Uma Thurman is the most beautiful woman on the planet and have made it a mission to see every movie she has been in (unfortunately that includes the horrible films Batman and robin, The Avengers) and this one.

this has to rank as the worst movie i've ever seen. (yes it ranks even lower than The Avengers). everyone looks lost in it and it is incoherent beyond belief. 

even if you think Uma is a goddess like i do, PLEASE PLEASE don't subject yourself to this movie. you'll hate yourself the following morning for it.

Sentiment: negative
I know it's crude, and I know that it isn't at all PC, but it's so funny. If you can put it into perspective that it's from the early 80's and it carries all the stereotypes of the time--and the movie still makes you almost pass out with laughter--than it is truly a good comedy. Going with the tradition of what comedies have been for thousands of years, the subject matter of this film is exagerated. If you can suspend your political correctness for an hour and a half, just to have an all-out laugh, than please watch this.

P.S. Would someone please put this out on DVD, it's so hard to find on VHS anymore.

Sentiment: positive
My roommates & I nearly shorted out our TV from the numerous spit-takes we did while watching this hilarious piece of 1970s self important pseudo-zen dreck. I'd read about this campfest for ages and scanned my local late night TV listings for YEARS in search of this elusive turd. Several years ago our local ABC affiliate was known for showing cool flicks for its late night weekend flick (ie "Frogs", "Night of the Lepus", etc). Then one day it happened: at 1:40am on a Saturday night (over 5 years ago) there it was! We had over 15 folks over and the flick did NOT disappoint!

See! Andy Griffith as the silliest & most unthreatening bad guy since Jaye Davidson in "Stargate"!

See! William Shatner sport a variety of things atop his head that only faintly resemble human hair (or anything organic for that matter).

Hear! jaw droppingly inane 1970s psychobabble that makes "Chicken Soup For The Soul" sound like BF Skinner

Feel! Content that any decade was better than the 70s.

For those still reading...the plot surrounds a bunch of middle class mid level a--holes who decide to suck up to their s---head boss (Griffith) by joining him on a cross dessert race that spans California & Mexico. They all wear leather jackets, looking more Christopher Street than anything else. Along the way they stop at a Cantina, get drunk, smoke joints (the sight Robert "Mike Brady" Reed smoke a joint is an image you won't soon forget), start a fight, attempt rape, and just act like a bunch of suburban middle class jack offs. Although I have an excellent copy that I taped off TV I WISH this one would be released on video so the whole world could enjoy its half baked goofiness.

Sentiment: negative
This is a really amazing story and the most amazing part of it all is that it REALLY happend! In case you haven't noticed: it's based on a true story.

(Possible spoiler)

Imagine the shock and horror of discovering that your own father was once a SS officer in WW II.

It's a very intriguing story and I'm really surprised the movie is rated a lousy 5.3 here on imdb.com.

my rate: 7

Sentiment: positive
Adapting plays into cinema is often a bad idea because they're two different mediums . Do you think it's a great idea to make ZULU into a stage play ? Imagine it where two valiant redcoats sit in a tent gasping " Blimey there's thousands of them out there " Great movie and a bad stage play 

In order for a stage play to make great cinema there's two essentials needed 

1) A fine cast that creates on screen chemistry 

2 ) Great dialogue 

On paper Cher and Chazz Palminterri would be a good casting choice but not in these roles . The story revolves around a hit-man played by Palminterri breaking into a house to kill a wife played by Cher with most of the action taking place inside the house . I was unable to take these two characters seriously though perhaps it was the fault of the script which can't decide whether it was trying to be serious or funny . Since the story is very static it's of the utmost importance that the dialogue shines and once again because of the bizarre tone of the screenplay it embarrasses more than anything else with much of the conversation revolving around sex acts . if you want to see a great translation of a stage play transferred to the silver screen give FAITHFUL a miss and watch 12 ANGRY MEN instead

Sentiment: negative
this movie simply does not work. The action scenes were shot to look stylish but just come out looking sloppy. seagal barely fights and a lot of his scenes are shot from the back ( if you look in some of the scenes it is not even him, but a 100 lb lighter stunt double) the movie is just all around BAD!

Sentiment: negative
THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! The Decline of Western Civilization......what a great title eh? And of coarse a great movie. This is the best concert film I have ever seen. A close second being the Talking Heads movie "Stop Making Sense". I first heard of this movie when Waynes World came out in 1992. I looked at the director's name Penelope Spheeris and thought cool name, what else has he directed? I thought the first name was pronounced like envelope. After some time looking in movie guides I came across the critically acclaimed Decline and realized Penelope was a woman.....my Mom corrected me. I spent 8 years of my life trying to track this down. I finally saw it on VHS in Vancouver, where I currently reside. It was worth the wait. This captures the LA punk movement very well. This is teen angst at it's best folks. My favourite is the band the Germs who need subtitles for the lyrics because Darby Crash sings so crazy, you cannot understand it. I laughed when I saw this. The band Black Flag live in an abandoned church and the band X are a very intelligent bunch. Also laughed at the letter some idiot writes in to Slash Magazine about how we do not need to save the whales, there are countless miles of ocean for us to pour toxins in! I became a huge Penelope Spheeris fan after this, and saw all her punk movies-Dudes was OK, and Suburbia is a cult classic! I own both of these on VHS. She is a true underground film maker and I love her stuff. I would have loved to have seen this movie in 1994 when grunge was so popular. I was a big Nirvana fan then, but alas I saw this in 2002 and by that point I had grown out of grunge and now I listen to Crystal Method/Fatboy Slim. Quite a change of pace, I know, but what can you do? But if you want a true depiction of the punk movement this captures it better than anything. Much better than 1991: The Year Punk Broke. This is a tough movie to track down, but if you get your hands on it, rent it, even if you don't like the music it is an excellent piece of work. Now days it might be easier to find with DVD's being so popular. By the way Penelope produced a little known Albert Brooks movie called "Real Life" which I also own. Very funny stuff in todays reality TV craptacular! Rent Decline......Highly recommended! Thanks!

Sentiment: positive
"Red Sonja" is flawed, weak and lacking. Even the camp-ness isn't good.

There are only two good things about "Red Sonja"; The costumes (even though the Red Sonja costume is ridiculous. It's ironic that a girl who is even afraid to be touched by men, because she was raped, still choose to wear so few little clothes, even when it rains.) and the music by Ennio Morricone. Still the movie is somewhat watchable but certainly not recommendable.

The story is extremely simple and they didn't even bother to make it interesting. The story could have been forgotten if there had been some good action sequences and some humor, both are present but are seriously flawed in many ways. The movie takes itself too serious and tries to impress but fails completely.

Brigitte Nielsen is an horrible leading lady. I don't know who's accent is worse; Hers or Arnie's and on top of that; She can't act. There is also absolutely no chemistry between the two characters which makes the love story totally unbelievable. Even worse was Sandahl Bergman as the main villain who acts more poorly than a paper bag. Ronald Lacey was somewhat good in his role, but my God he looked horrible, he changed so much since his (only well known) role in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Maybe it had something to do with his illness which claimed his life in 1991? And by the way, what was with all those "Raiders of the Lost Ark" actors in this movie? Next to Ronald Lacey, Pat Roach, Terry Richards and Tutte Lemkow appeared in a role, it seemed like some kind of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" reunion.

The only times when the movie gets a bit interesting is during the (sword)fights even though some of them are needless and weak.

Only really watchable for the fans of the fantasy-genre.

4/10

Sentiment: negative
In fact, it never was. I'm not sure why Billy Crystal wanted to recreate a 1940s screwball comedy. What a vacuous shambles! None of these people come close to a Cary Grant, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, etc, and anyway, today's audience isn't as receptive to this facile muck. Writing is trivial. The hackneyed plot is razor thin and obvious. The chemistry between the leading characters is non-existent. It's interesting that Julia Roberts seems to think she's a reincarnation of some big star from the "golden age of Hollywood", whenever that may be. It's an effect she tries and fails to attain yet again with Richard Gere in Runaway Bride.

Sentiment: negative
#1 Vampires vs. Humans

#2 Military-reject roughneck squad as first responders to dangerous, unknown Vampire incursions.

#3 Sexy female Vampire on the side of the "good guys".

#4 Plenty of gore and action.

There are four (4) major plot devices that may help you decide if you want to watch this movie. If you want all four, then the next plot device may not deter you...

#5 In outer space.

That last one almost got me too, but I'm glad I watched. In a pile of terrible direct-to-video horror that is the Sci-Fi channel Halloween marathon... this movie is a breath of fresh air. It will stand-up against any of the other Sci-Fi channel offerings, and even against the other Vampire movie Natassia starred in (who keeps giving Uwe Boll money?).

Sentiment: negative
This film is enjoyable if you like poverty row, public domain films from the first half of the 20th century, or are a fan of amateur film-making. The film splices together public domain thrillers together along with newly shot scenes in which the "actors" (With the sole exception of Redfield doing a near dead on Lugosi rip, all of the "performers" are simply dreadful!) attempt to interact with the stock footage. The "New" footage is covered with digitally added film scratches, as is some of the already substandard old footage (??!!). As near as I can figure out the plot has something to do with a bunch of strangers being brought together on an island for a will reading(?) This film, while boasting a creative premise ala 'Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid', is a technical and creative wreck. In one dreadfully over long sequence and injured sailor on a ship describes an abortive trip to 'Fog Island', whatever that is! The "flashback" then incoherently weaves together old footage from totally different eras, and of totally disparate film quality. Unrelated scenes from 'The Lost World' (1925), The Most Dangerous Game (1932), White Zombie (1932), Bela Lugosi Meets A Brooklyn Gorilla (1952) and some other poverty row productions. This is done over an incredibly bad voice over which seems to have too much room echo as if the audio was recorded on a cheap home video camera.

The "filmmakers" seem to think that they are paying homage to the great actors of yesteryear by giving characters the surnames of famous actors (Carradine, Zucco, Ouspenskaya, etc..etc..). This tactic was done cleverly, as well as subtly in 'Final Destination' here it's just obnoxious! Bizarre, and painfully unfunny, jokes about Spiderman, Dracula, and Superman abound. Even the old as dirt 'Dewey, Cheetam and Howe' lawyer reference is used here-this was old and tired when The Three Stooges used it in the 1930s.

The film stock and audio, don't match scene to scene, and dozens of different sources are used for Lugosi. The finale effect is that he seems to be getting, older, younger, older, thinner, heavier, younger and older again minute by minute. Oddly the film didn't use this as a comedy subplot and squanders a good chance for comedy.

Truth be told though, It was great fun to watch this late at night in bed. Maybe thats what they wanted to happen!

Sentiment: negative