DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Recently, a friend and I were discussing educational and ethical influences when we were growing up in the 1950's versus today. She mentioned Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who, in 1798, wrote The Rime of The Ancient Mariner. Both of us had been required to recite parts of the epic poem in high school and in English Literature courses in college. My friend said, "Its messages even might be called metaphysical within today's context." 

We tried reciting it and only remembered bits and pieces. (I have problems remembering Dr. Seuss.) I said I'd get two copies of the poem so each could read it. That was easy enough, but I was extremely surprised to find it had been made into a film. We looked forward to watching the film to see how it had been interpreted. After all, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner isn't exactly light reading. After each had read the poem, we watched the film together.

We considered the film a remarkable achievement, especially considering it was made in the 1970's, before computers, before the so-called "Ken Burns effect," and before special effects too often began compensating for a lack of substance. Particularly noteworthy are the 19th and 20th century illustrations culled from "lesser known artists," such as Willy Pogany, the early Hollywood designer. 

The film is narrated by Sir Michael Redgrave, whom had taught the poem when he was a schoolmaster, adding a tone of authority and credibility in remaining true to the poem. 

Its mastery is in the layers of subtle messages, conveyed without "instructing," or becoming an oppressive and obvious morality tale. We found it such a refreshing change from today's 'in your face' and 'clobber them over the head' mentality. Most of today's morality messages in film are two-dimensional: extreme violence, murder and mayhem mark the bad. The bad are really, really, bad, and good are super heroes. It is as if human character lacked any nuance. The Rime of The Ancient Mariner is a celebration of the individual, of character, of an appreciation for celebrating all the richness life has to offer, within the larger context of humanity, i.e., man's capacity to give to others. 

Proud of ourselves for having found this "unknown" gem, we then learned it had won the top award in its category five out of six times at "name" international film festivals. Another surprise was learning the film's director, Raul daSilva, is a recognized authority on early animation, and authored six award winning books about film. 

This film's message is just as relevant today, if not more so, than when Coleridge penned the original epic poem and when Raul daSilva translated it to film. If I still was teaching high school, which I did for five years, I'd grab this one and show it to all my students. There's a level of richness here that naturally leads to discussion about the big and important issues all of us face, whether in 1798, 1978, or today--in fact, as long as humanity has a spiritual component.

Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is simply incredible! I had expected something quite different form the film that I actually saw. However, it is very insightful in that it shows the aggressive nature of human sexuality and its linkage with animal behavior. Let me warn those among the readers of this article who are easily offended by content that is all too sexual, for the explicit sexual nature of this film feels like a high-brow sort of pornography. It even features a scene that comes extremely close to rape.

Meanwhile, I strongly suggest seeing this rare work of "sexual art". Every minute of the picture breathes the sexual spirit of the seventies, by the way. One should not forget how times have changed!

Go see it! It´s worth your money and time!

Sentiment: positive
My friends and I rented this for "Bad Movie Night" with high hopes, but The Brain was something of a letdown. The Brain itself is gloriously goofy-looking, but it mostly just sits on its little platform. Who thought that it would be cool that the Brain only gets to munch on three people throughout 94 drawn-out minutes? This movie has a number of things going for it at first, including an Estevez-knockoff lead playing a rebellious genius (we're told that his enormous intellect is misdirected into his elaborate pranks and school stunts, which include putting krazy glue on someone's chair). It also has some great lines, a hilariously out-of-shape and out-of-breath henchman who just barely manages to be everywhere, and, yeah, some chick gets naked. However, the director desperately needs some schooling in the art of pacing. During the last half things just start to drag on and on, with at least 3 or 4 pointless, boring chase scenes making up the middle third of the plot. The scenes inside the PRI complex are especially bad. At least 15 minutes of this movie are people running up and down the same stairwell. I could've fixed the screenplay to this thing in half an hour- more cheese, more gore, more nudity, more Brain action. If you're going to make a bad horror movie, at least give me something cool to look at while my superego shuts down. Maybe the director was trying to really bring the audience into his movie- I started feeling like one of the zombified townsfolk by the end of this crapfest.

Sentiment: negative
A fine performance by Vittorio Mezzogiorno and a masterful one by Jean-Hugues Anglade adorn this stange tale of lust, desire and alienation in France. The work of the two lead performers is striking--subtle, intense and passionate. Alas, the script is deliberately turgid and sordid, and the overall effect leaves one with a downcast spirit. Still, those who can appreciate fine quality acting will be able to savor the courageous work of the leads in this often difficult film journey of Gallic low life.



Sentiment: positive
Now what's wrong with the actors that took part in that crap? Michael Dorn should stick to the Star Treck merchandise. John Diehl, does anyone remember him in Miami Vice? Liked him there... Well, whatever - what can one expect from a movie with one of the lifeguards from baywatch in the lead? Nothing, and that's what we get. None of the characters is even likable, the special effects are hilarious (but not funny). The story is a (very bad) joke. There is no logic whatsoever for what's happening. I got the feeling that the film makers were trying some kind of "Attack of the killer tomatoes" kind of thing. Especially in the scene where all the important people were discussing national security in some kind of a closet...

If you happen to see it on TV, switch channels - your TV set will be ever thankful.

Sentiment: negative
Ya I rented it, so shoot me!

A decent premise sets up an otherwise awkward story with no real payoff, but at least it's shot well. Director Jon Keeyes takes the simple idea of a fake haunted house with real danger inside. In most cases this should be a slam dunk, but this little stinker derails quite quickly. The cinematography is above average and the acting is mediocre at best, but the story and writing is just plain awful. Slower scenes drag on forever and the scares are too few and far in between with no real climax to the film. An eerie mood is set at the beginning but loses it's luster before any type of horror transpires, and I found myself bored to death and making another sandwich... The cover art is appealing and I suppose it's worth a rental if you're looking for mindless low budget dreck, but if you enjoy a good story and eventful ending, reach for something else.

Sentiment: negative
This is definitely one of the better Mel Brooks movies, along with Spaceballs(although I will openly admit to not having watched many others, at least yet). It's very silly and thoroughly funny, there are hardly more than a few minutes throughout the entire two hour run-time, where you aren't entertained. Almost all of the gags have a great comical effect, few of them fall flat. I saw this movie right after seeing and reviewing Spy Hard, and comparing these two spoof movies, I realize exactly of how high quality this movie really is. It's funny from start to finish, none of the comedy is overdone or boring. The music is marvelous, as is the choreography of both dancing and fighting. The acting is pretty much what you would normally expect from this type of movie... Elwes is a great comedian, and makes a good Robin. The plot is typical Robin Hood, more or less everything from the legend is fit into this movie(and spoofed majorly). If you like Mel Brooks, or you're just a fan of silly humor, or you're just dying to watch a good parody of the legend of Robin Hood, this is definitely the film for you. The HBO First Look special on the film is also worth watching, and in that, you may want to keep watching throughout the credits, too. I'd recommend it to any fan of Mel Brooks movies, and to people who enjoy silly humor. 7/10

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film under the title of "Tied Up". In general I have enjoyed Dolph's movies, so gave this one a try. It wasn't worth it. I have read some of the previous comments about the box enticing viewers. Don't be fooled. This is a poor film at best. The acting is nonexistent. The plot, what little there is of one, is very predictable. The movie in places seems to be chopped together. This one just plain stinks the place up. Not even worth the price of a cheap night rental. As a bit of a Dolph fan, I kept waiting to see him in action. By the end of the movie, you will still be waiting. Best to avoid this film, and spend your time watching almost anything else.

Sentiment: negative
Like most people I love "A Christmas Story". I had never even heard of this film and perhaps for good reason--it is awful. Same locale, same narrator, same director but the warm fuzziness of the original was lacking. Charles Grodin was a poor choice to replace Darrin McGavin but I cannot imagine anyone being able to replace him. The story seems forced and lacks the sweetness of the original. The interaction with the neighbors, the Bumpuses, is ridiculous. In "A Christmas Story" Ralphie's obsession with the BB gun seems cute but his obsession in this movie is boring. Scud Farkus, the original neighborhood bully, is replaced in this film by yet another kid with braces and a weird hat but with little of the Scud Farkus menacing appeal. It would be pretty difficult to equal the original, even if this movie had been made with the original crew.

Sentiment: negative
Before "Miracle on 34th Street," Maureen O'Hara and John Payne made this, this, this film. I was going to describe it, but can't find words for how badly this film turned out. The subject matter of adopting a child and Maureen's illness are both very serious and sensitive issues, but that notwithstanding, this could have been done a whole lot better than it was. It was so extreme in its portrayal that it didn't come across as real at all. Probably its problem started with a weak script.

Another example of a screenwriter taking a novel and writing a weak movie. (See my review of "A Stranger in My Arms.") The beautiful O'Hara was often saddled with clunkers like this, another being Forbidden Street (Britannica Mews,) which I may review eventually.

If you have any emotional ties to this from childhood, you'll be kinder to this rather lifeless, colorless, and lackluster film. But for something along the lines of this, maybe you can find its TV-movie remake. It has to be better. It has to be.

Sentiment: negative
After Highlander 2 (which I am still in denial about), I thought is was impossible to make a sequel that could make me cry because it was so bad. I was wrong. I loved the original Wargames, however, this movie is inaccurate with computer details and details about the original movie. The original Wargames at least had some hacks that worked. Whoever wrote this movie knew NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS except how to use a word processor. I doubt he or she even watched the original movie. The acting isn't even convincing. Please save yourselves, under no circumstances watch this movie. I don't care if the channel is stuck on the TV and you can't turn the TV off. THIS MOVIE WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE.

Sentiment: negative
o dear god i suffered having to watch this film FOUR times in my sisters house and was it dreadful a story of sex and guns and very cheap unexplained acting unless you are at gunpoint being told to watch this avoid it Ja Rule just proved he cannot act Ving Rhames also gave the most dreadful acting ever in any of his films there was not one part of this film made me laugh or make me jump or feel any emotion i would be surprised people actually enjoyed this i have seem some dreadful films in my life but this would be in my five worst films ever the music in it wasn't good and the storyline i think was made up by a couple of guys who ordered a pizza and just sat down wrote ten bullet points and then made it into a film absolutely dreadful

Sentiment: negative
"Get Shorty", "Out of Sight", "Jackie Brown" (and even "52 Pick-Up")--folks were finally getting Elmore Leonard right, making good movies out of his work. So, despite my students' warnings about how bad this movie would be, I couldn't resist renting it. I thought, How bad can it be? Oy, what a mistake, especially right on the heels of reading the book, which was lame (and too circularly self-referential, too) relative to the rest of Elmore Leonard's books. Still, the book was better than the movie. Leonard again trumps the weak and unskilled screen-writers who try to take over his book. The dialogue written for Steven Tyler was painful to watch. And the lyrics to the character Linda Moon's first song? My middle-schoolers write with more depth. Sad, sad, sad. Why even give it a star? Because Harvey Keitel and Uma Thurman are still fun to see on screen, and Andre 3000 didn't make a complete fool of himself.

Sentiment: negative
A series of painfully unfunny skits that seem to go on forever and a day. Not as mind-numbingly awful as say "Freddy Got Fingered" or "Lost Reality", but that in NO way is an endorsement in ANY way, sense or form. Features the worst rhyming clown ever. Any most if it isn't offensive to anybody but the most prudish or politically correct. It also has the worst song parody EVER put on film, the WORST Arnold impersonation EVER (not just the worst put on film, literally the worst EVER). I have NO clue why Karen Black, Micheal Clarke Duncan, or Slash would star in this (the reasons I watched this in the first place) The only thing mildly amusing was Dickman. In conclusion I would't recommend this film to ANYONE, but the people who are making it their mission in life to get this in the Bottom 250 on this site are pathetic. Do something notable with you lives people. Plus if it's true the Church of Scientalogy hates him, he can't be ALL bad.

My Grade: D

Sentiment: negative
Bunny Comes Home 'This Man's Navy' deserves more credit than it gets, a clever script by Borden Chase, directed by 'Wild Bill' Wellman, the film has just the right feel for early post WW11 euphoria and goodwill, and none of the blind terror that came into play few years later. Produced in 1944, the Japanese defeated, the battle scenes a little déjà vu, Tom Drake's melancholy attraction for radiant young Jan Clayton has solid chemistry, plays real and validates Drake's career at Metro. The following year Jan opened on Broadway in 'Carousel.' Wally Beery, a little bleary-eyed, boasts to an always incredulous Jimmy Gleason his memories an improvement over reality, and give Beery a Ulysses-like shadow to play against. The Navy LTA (Lighter Than Air) shots are authentic, photographed at Tustin and Lakehurst, and the P-38 squadron is out of March AFB. Lot 3 doubled for India, and Bunny's U-turn Bunny Comes Home gives back to Beery an authentic slice of his past, something he had wanted to believe was true then, the future we spin into again is fantastical now on a grander scale, a newly designed Navy LTA with launch capabilities for a reconnaissance plane how expensive, blissfully optimistic still, "You got to believe in it, that's the way you make things come true"

Sentiment: positive
The only reason I rented this movie was that Val Kilmer rarely stars in a bad movie. There is of course a first time for everything. In many ways, this movie proves that oaters aren't as easy to make as we think, especially by foreign directors. The only one who got by with it was probably Sergio Leone, but even his movies lacked that something indefinably innate to our American psyche and panache. American actors in Clint Eastwood and Henry Fonda did help . I can see now why they changed the original title from "Summer Love" to " Dead Man's Bounty". That itself tells me the producers and director didn't have any core understanding about a western other than those standard shoot'em up scenes and violent themes. I suppose we can say the same about American directors attempting to make a Polish movie while failing miserably in the process.

Sentiment: negative
A friend of mine once rented this, thinking since Peter Fonda starred in it, it couldn't be bad. WRONG! It's bad as anything can be. There is so much to laugh at and it's not the jokes. For instance, in one scene Hawken walks into the forest and when he comes out he is suddenly wearing a completely different outfit! Where was "the director's" brain when he shot that scene?!? Probably the same place Fonda's was when he agreed to do this flick. It's truly a shame one has to see such a fine actor go dumb in this poor excuse for a film.

Nobody's performance in this movie can be called acting. Jack Elam is brought in just to bring up the star count here, but all he does is looking startled in a very dark and awfully shot scene in some kind of bar. Not to mention the "Indians", the girl was so godawful I wanted to shoot her just to end her misery and mine as well. If I could give this a 0, I would. Shame that mark doesn't exist here. This truly reminds of a bad joke or an amateur footage made just for fun. This should serve as a proof of how bad B-movies can get.

Sentiment: negative
Don't waste your time. One of those cool-looking boxes that you pick up at Blockbuster on a hunch, but not even worth that. You will NOT say, "It's so bad, it's good." Just, "It's bad." The Greatest American Hero is a writer who rents a cabin on African island, called Snake Island. Some other tourists are on the boat that drops him off, but they are not staying on the island. They just stop there to let off the writer. Then the boat is stranded there, and --in true Hollywood originality-- the one and only radio on the island is busted. So they start walking around and see a bunch of snakes. Like hundreds of them, which really became annoying and you knew the plot would go nowhere. It's not like there ever was ONE main snake. Like a giant mutated snake or an extra poisonous king of all snakes. Instead, there are just a bunch of ham-and-egger snakes of all kinds of breeds. Their only goal, then, was to escape the island...as opposed to having to conquer the enemy. Because there were so many snakes, you knew they couldn't possibly try to kill them all, and they didn't try. I've seen a similar movie where a town was haunted by snakes and they lead all the snakes into a cave then blew it up. At least then you get the feeling that the good guys killed the bad guys and it was a normal ending. In Snake Island (by the way, every single character was shocked to see snakes on the Island...duhhhhh, it's NAMED Snake Island for a reason), there was no plan other than trying to get gas for the stupid boat. Oh, they never do get gas by the way. They "just happen" to find another boat on the island already gassed up.

Sentiment: negative
This wasn't what i wanted to see. I bought this on DVD and under the movie i found myself irritated and turned off the movie for a moment.

Heres what i didn't like:

1 They were shooting at the father

2 The tribes was really annoying

3 the dinosaurs (mostly)looked to faked

4 The bad scientist well he was annoying

5 The picture quality on the DVD was really bad

What i DID like: 

1 The music by Jerry Goldsmith. This music is really great. I have the bootleg soundtrack from this movie. Sadly the sound quality is not good, but its OK for its time.

2 The first time we see the dinosaurs they inspire a sort of awe.

3 Baby is kinda cute when he is in the water and is playing

4 That funny scene with the tent. 

5 The children who sees this film would hopefully learn that evil always loses.

Sentiment: negative
Although many audio recordings of great musicians like Jascha Heifetz survive, the cinematic or televised record is limited indeed. This is why musical offerings like "They Shall Have Music" are such rare gems. While, with modern eyes and ears, one can quibble about the plot, the perceptive viewer should put this film's unique delights in their proper perspective. The plot was designed to appeal to both young and old audiences of the era, but it remains enjoyable to this day. A important aspect of the experience of watching classic films is to see them through the eyes of the moviegoer of that era.

I must take issue with reviewer who complains about a film that is in black and white, or who feel obliged to report that their students express such reservations. These are juvenile complaints which reflect a limited historical perspective. For the teacher, this should offer up an educational opportunity to explain the unique qualities of black and white photography and its place in cinematic history. Color can, in fact, get in the way of a good storyline, or the music. For example, the black and white photography of John Ford's "Stagecoach," is, like the still photographs of Ansel Adams, an artistic masterpiece.

As for Heifetz being wooden, I could not disagree more. If you want blatant emotional posturing, go to a rock concert. The role of a classical musician like Heifetz is to move the audience, not him or herself. Heifetz's emotion is conveyed through his playing, not through his body language. He had a rare ability to extract every emotional nuance out of the music and transfer it to his listeners. It is the listener who should be moved, not the artist.

Incidentally, one reviewer asked about seeing Heifetz on YouTube playing the 1st movement of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto, with Frank McHugh in the audience. This is from the 1947 film "Carnegie Hall," not "They Shall Have Music" "Carnegie Hall" is an even greater treasure of many great classical artists in their prime. We are blessed that there were film producers who, at least in these limited instances, chose to showcase these artists. In was still an era not totally overwhelmed by the lowest common denominator tripe we get today.

Sentiment: positive
This sitcom was a big crowd puller in the year 1984-1985.That was a time people could see deserted streets in most of the over crowded Indian cities whenever there were sitcom on Indian television screens. All this was the result of the setting up of television relay stations across the entire Indian nation. This was one of the essential elements of the modernization of Indian television network strategy adopted by the late Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi.It was also continued by her son Rajiv Gandhi. This series provided clean entertainment which a large majority of Indian television audience watched on their black and white television sets.A funny thing about this series is that it was sponsored by an indigenous company dealing in Ayurvedic products. A couple of days ago I caught sight of some episodes of this series but the overall laughter equation was missing. This goes on to prove that may be with the ever changing passage of time entertainment material lose their charm and hold over people's minds.

Sentiment: positive
I just got done watching The Edge of Love (by the way, this is one of the worst titles so far this year) and it felt like a chore. Watching Keira Knightly's unlikable, skeleton-looking character made me cringe even more throughout the coarse of the film.

It took me four nights to watch this it was so boring. The only good thing about it was Cillian Murphy. He's always good/believable and is severely under looked in many films. This, however, was just not good enough for him.

Apart from the unlikable characters, boring storyline, the plot was also emotionally unsatisfying. I felt like I spent my time watching this for nothing (which I did). I should have done the smart thing and turned it off, but I kept it on out of respect for Cillian Murphy and the great cinematography.

Sentiment: negative
Uwe Boll slips back in his film-making skills once again to offer up a scifi horror tale of mercenaries and reporters taking on super soldiers on a remote island. An okay cast headed by the excellent Udo Keir is cast adrift by Boll who makes the worst of script that should have worked. The mad scientist being investigated by a reporter has been done to death but this script is amusing enough that the plot should have worked, additionally the effects and super soldier design with their dead lifeless eyes have some degree of creepiness, however Boll somehow manages to film everything in an off handed way. Its as if he couldn't be bothered to actually figure out what would work and instead rattled off stock camera placements and walked away. Additionally the assembly of scenes has no spark or life, I'm guessing that Boll only shot one or two takes and just used what he had. It really stinks. Clearly Boll is in one of his periodic retrograde films where anything he's ever learned about film gets flushed. The last film he made that was this bad was Seed a serial killer movie that is one of the worst films I've ever seen. This isn't that bad, but it is close simply because it should have been better. Then again Udo Keir is good enough that he does make watching his scenes worth the effort and make this a an almost so bad its good film. I'd take a pass unless it's late at night and you're catching it on cable.

Sentiment: negative
1) I am not weapon expert, but even i can see difference between U.S. army riffles in WWI and WWII. In movie we can see privates, armed with "M1 Garand" (invented in year 1932!), not authentic "1903 Springfield" (aka "Silent Death"), who privates use until WWII. Difference - M1 can load 1,5 times more ammunition and 3 times more fire rate! M1 was semi - automatic, Springfield requires reloading after every shot. Little difference?! 2) German army uniforms has borrowed from 1940 Year too. Especially - helmets. German helmets until end of WWI have significant pike on top, we cannot see even one in movie. And if we make little additional search in archives - how much truthful is this "True Story"? I am surprised, how much "truthful" can be film directors in a pursuit of cheap propagation.

Sentiment: negative
This is not the video nastie, but only because it came out in 1994 when they were presumably tired of the whole thing in Britain. It is 75% a rehash of The Boogeyman, and would have been banned for the same reason - whatever that was.

I was initially confused as I thought that Annie (Kelly Galindo) may have been a different Lacey, but she was someone trouble by psychic visions of a boogeyman similar to the one in the first film. Fans will immediately note that they are not the same person.

After seeing a murder in a bathroom, and also seeing the address as well, Annie, her psychiatrist and a para psychology student who greatly resembles the guy on the cheap romance novels and butter commercials, head to the house, and, sure enough, it's the same bathroom. 24 hours later a murder happens just as she described. Of course, we have no idea who this boobilicious woman is or why she was murdered.

Then the movie shift to a rerunning of The Boogeyman story with some extra footage that we did not see in the original. Notably, the boogeyman is shown unlike the original. Sadly, some of the good scenes were cut, but 90% of it is there. Why rerun this film? Did they find the footage in the trash? What was the purpose? 

We'll never know and, despite the psychologist telling Annie she is cured, we all know the bogeyman will never die.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this movie a couple of weeks ago and must say: I was not impressed, not at all. I do side with the other posters when it comes to the fine performances, but some good performances do not make a good movie.

On the discussion board, I found a review by an anonymous poster that captured some of the main points. It says: "'Deed Poll' is a movie that raises many questions but hardly answers even a few; a movie that is disturbing and above every attempt at categorizing; an experiment and a very conventional sexual drama despite some shocking scenes. The brilliant acting of Barbara Kowa and André Schneider, the partly very impressive editing and the good camera work (Steffen Ritter) make up for gross plot holes and some technical slips (especially in sound). However, the boredom the audiences have to deal with for 40 minutes remains." Unfortunately, this is true. I wasn't intrigued by the story at all. The protagonists are cold, ambition-less people. They do a lot of drugs and have a lot of (incestuous) sex. So what? For many times, the direction seemed to be virtually non-existent, not to mention the technical aspect: the poor sound quality was enormously disturbing.

What's the point of the movie? What's the message behind it all? The anonymous reviewer said: "Somehow Biermann failed to make a clear point and so the movie remains hanging in mid-air without a message. Thus the boredom I blame on the movie. The movie is reserved and emotionless, cold, almost neutral and it doesn't take long to see the flaws: for long stretches the characters of Sean and Ivy are not credible (they clearly have difficulties with the English pronunciation), the character of the mute brother is not developed very well. Some moments are very promising though - in the scene where the call boy is skinned (the one and only true love scene) an intensity is reached that one would love to see the whole movie long. As a spectator one has to regret the chances given away." Again, I must agree. I did like the final scene, especially because of the beautifully captured faces of Gianni Meurer and André Schneider, but it was nothing compared to the boredom I had to suffer for the first thirty minutes. (The sex scenes, though, were aesthetically staged and perfectly edited.)

All in all, "Deed Poll" was not my cup of tea - a good, controversial idea wasted -, but it was a interesting to see how a movie can be made with practically no money. Maybe if they had a bigger budget and a more experienced director, this would have become a better movie.

Sentiment: negative
PROM NIGHT (2008)

directed by: Nelson McCormick

starring: Brittany Snow, Scott Porter, Jessica Stroup, and Dana Davis

plot: Three years ago, Donna (Brittany Snow) witnessed the death of her entire family at the hands of her teacher (Jonathan Schaech) who has a bit of a crush on her. Now, she is preparing for her senior prom with her stupid annoying friends. Once there, they start dying one by one because the killer escaped from prison and no one bothered to warn Donna because apparently her prom is too important to interrupt. 

pros: I got a few good laughs out of the film due to the terrible dialog and the dumb character moves.

An example:

Everyone decides not to tell Donna that the man who is oddly obsessed with her (she doesn't seem that great) has escaped from prison. Their reason: They don't want to embarrass her in front of all her friends. LOL

cons: Let me start off by saying I'm a huge slasher fan. Usually I can have fun with even the bad ones. I even like some PG-13 horror films. TOURIST TRAP (1979), one of my favorites, was originally rated PG. I also enjoy POLTERGEIST (1982) and THE GRUDGE (2004). So the fact that this is a dumb slasher film that is rated PG-13 does not have anything to do with me not enjoying the movie.

First of all, I had a big problem with the story. I like slasher films that don't even have stories. At least they can be entertaining. This is about a teacher who falls in love with his student, so he kills her entire family. A few years later, he tries to make it up to her by ruining her prom and killing all of her friends ...? Then there were subplots that I doubt anyone cared about. Claire (Jessica Stroup) is fighting with her boyfriend, she has cramps, and I couldn't care less. This should have been a Lifetime feature, not a remake of PROM NIGHT. 

And then ... this is a slasher film with terrible death scenes. I don't even care that it's not that gory, some of my favorite slashers (HALLOWEEN, CURTAINS, the original PROM NIGHT) were not that gory but they still had effective murders. Here, we have half the characters dying in the same hotel room off screen, a woman being stabbed several times with no stab wounds, and a closeup on a bad actor's face as he screams in agony. I'm sure that 10 year-old girls were terrified, but not me.

I also hated the characters. There was Donna's unrealistically sensitive boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and I can almost guarantee you will never meet a boyfriend that sensitive in your life, unless you are a gay male. Then we had Donna's annoying friends Claire (Stroup) and Lisa (Dana Davis), and the token mean girl Chrissy (Brianne Davis). If you thought the characters in DEATH PROOF were annoying, try watching this movie. And don't get me started on Ronnie (Collins Pennie) and the DJ (Jay Phillips) who gave me flashbacks to Usher's performance in SHE'S ALL THAT.

Add to all that predictable plot turns, a terrible soundtrack and a big lack of respect to the original material, and you have quite a stinker.

Sentiment: negative
It is a superb Swedish film .. it was the first Swedish film I've seen .. it is simple & deep .. what a great combination!.

Michael Nyqvist did a great performance as a famous conductor who seeks peace in his hometown.

Frida Hallgren was great as his inspirational girlfriend to help him to carry on & never give up.

The fight between the conductor and the hypocrite priest who loses his battle with Michael when his wife confronts him And defends Michael's noble cause to help his hometown people finding their own peace in music.

The only thing that I didn't like was the ending .. it wasn't that good but it has some deep meaning.

Sentiment: positive
Please, do not waste your time and money with this stinker of a turkey.

This is an over-the-top melodramatic love story set against the background of New France (aka Quebec in the 18th century). Or is it an historical saga of New France with an epic romance thrown in? I don't know, and at this point I don't care anymore.

There is a rich story to be told out there about the intrepid French adventurers, rogues and other assorted characters who settled Canada and parts of the US. This is not it. The characters are total clichés, the story is overblown, breathless and devoid of any charm, and before long all the viewer wants to do is get the heck out of the theatre, have his or her head checked, and get hold of his or her anger at being taken in by the hype.

This film was the biggest disappointment of my year in terms of cinema, especially since, as an historian and a French Canadian or Canadian of French descent (or whatever) I am a) a believer in the fact that the story of my people in this country has yet to be told as well as it could on film b) interested in this subject c) a film-lover who thinks cinema these days could do wonders with this grandiose and tragic story.

As I said, do not waste your time with this frustrating bit of claptrap.

Sentiment: negative
As soon as the credits rolled on Saturday night you could feel it in the air that the doctor was most definitely back!

Watching those iconic moments where Christopher Eccelston met Billie Piper was the beginning of a huge long adventure.

With this new series it brings with it substences in which the previous version of the show lacked. For instence, the emotion between the Doctor and his companion which they seemed to dismiss in the old series, as well as the doctor actually falling in love with a companion and receiving her love in return. Yet as we know, the doctor shall forever remain lonely as the end of Season 2 proved, he could not stay with a companion forever. Watching those moments, your eyes filling with tears as the doctor says his final farewell to the only companion he has ever loved, were moments beautifully written and acted.

This show however proved it can live on as the doctor meets many other companions along his lonely yet exciting journey through his never ending life.

Openeing new doors and secrets every episode it's a sure show for the family to enjoy...

As Christopher Eccelston once described the show... "The journey of a lifetime."

Sentiment: positive
I have no idea what on earth, or beyond, could have possibly made Sam Mraovich believe that this would have been a worthy project to undertake. Ben & Arthur is one of the worst movies ever made. In fact, I see no reason why it should not be at #1 on the Bottom 100. For although I have not seen, for example, SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (#5 at the time of this publication), I would venture to guess that that film is considerably better than this oozing wound, because even in its vapid dismalness at least Baby Geniuses 2 was professionally made. By contrast, everything, and I do mean everything, in this film is completely unprofessional.

The movie is intended to be an attack on the Christian Right's supposed bigotry and hatred toward gays. And I do emphasize "intended." Not only does it completely and utterly fail at its purpose, it also leaves an ugly scar. Instead of creating a compelling and realistic portrait of a gay couple's struggle against a society that largely opposes them, it creates tired, crass stereotypes of each party involved. Ben and Arthur, the namesake couple, are portrayed as two crude, sex-starved, and hopelessly romantic cardboard cutouts who marry when the laws change to allow them to do so. This meets with the opposition of Ben's brother Victor, a Christian minister who, like all Christians (as this movie would have us believe), is loud, prying, stupid, and violent. He tries to kill Ben and Arthur after his associations with them get him kicked out of the ministry. Just like in real life. And if you think that's dreadful (it is), you haven't seen it all.

The actors (?) here manage to completely destroy any vestige of credibility in this movie by saying their lines as if they were narrating a YouTube home comedy video. But not even Daniel Day-Lewis and Marlon Brando as the title characters could have saved this clunker, for there would still be the matter of the completely inane and laugh-inducing dialogue that fills every minute of the movie. Every scene has at least one awkward or misplaced quote. For example, in one scene, Victor tries to complain about not being able to have nieces or nephews because of his brother's homosexuality. But instead of portraying this idea clearly, he spits out the stupid, utterly confusing, whiny-sounding line, "You know what, I'm never going to have any nieces or nephews, okay, because you're so F***ED UP!"

Even more glaring is the complete lack of production values. Yes, I know this ain't The Dark Knight, but even amateur film makers should know some basics about special effects and editing. For example, six dots of red cake dye do not suffice for realistic bullet wounds. People do not teleport across a room between takes. And objects do not fall FORWARD when shot! 

Do not waste your money on Ben & Arthur. I don't care if you're 7, 17, or 107. I don't care if you're gay, straight, bi, or undecided. I don't care if you're "just curious." I don't care what pathetic reason you may have to be tempted to buy this dung-heap. Stay away, far away. This movie's only redeeming quality is its ability to be used as a Frisbee.

Sentiment: negative
Laurence Fishburne is a fine actor, and deserves respect for trying this, but he is not in a class with the great Shakespeareans like Olivier and Welles; and he further suffers from Kenneth Branagh. This Irishman, always brilliant, cleanly steals the show away. Olivier recognized that potential in his production, and cast Iago with someone he knew he could upstage. I didn't nearly realize the possibilities of Iago, Shakespeare's most evil character, but Branagh shows us the depths. Nice to see the views of Venice, too.

Sentiment: positive
The only redeeming part of this movie was the price I paid. At least all I lost was $3.00 and the time elapsed sitting through this bomb. The crew member who was in charge of continuity missed the boat. When the female lead and the FBI guy went to the alleged killers location, Mr. FBI handed the female a revolver. When the alleged killer came out the door, the revolver has magically transformed into an automatic. One is left to ponder would an FBP agent hand a weapon to a civilian? I think not. Ms. Xavier appears to be a very attractive female. It is too bad the R rating did not allow much of her to be seen. It would seem that a film editor cut what might have been the best parts of the film out.

Sentiment: negative
I entered my first comment on this film almost five years ago. Then, the ideas presented in the movie still seemed mostly fictional, if indeed they could ever transpire at all. Not any longer. Now, the politics, society, and media in The Running Man seem very close to home indeed.

Consider the following factors, which were mostly absent in 1987 (the year The Running Man came out) that are present today:

Concern with, as Richard Dawson's character Damon Killian puts it, "traditional morality." CHECK

Entertainment in the form of extreme reality, including pain, fear, and discomfort on the part of contestants. CHECK

Cameras everywhere. CHECK

Restricted travel for citizens at the whim of the government, controlled by a centralized computer system complete with barcoded passports ("travel passes" in the movie) and sanctioned under the guise of national security. CHECK

An increased intermingling, bordering on incestuous, of government and media. CHECK

Computer-generated graphics that are advanced enough to manipulate real film footage (such as the "digital matting" of Ben Richards' image onto the stunt double). CHECK

Jailing of conscientious objectors or detractors of the current administration. CHECK

Flagging economy further widening the gulf between the wealthy and not-so-wealthy; increasing numbers of fringe groups reacting to the tightening noose of big government; civil unrest brewing just under or at the surface of nearly every sizable public event regardless of its origin or intent. CHECK, CHECK, CHECK

Then again, maybe it's just a movie based on a Stephen King novella. But just to be safe, I'm moving to Switzerland.

Sentiment: positive
Jimmy Stewart and Anthony Mann teamed to do some of the best westerns ever made and this is one of the best.

The real star of the film however is the spectacular Canadian Rockies that serve as a backdrop for the story. Some of the best cinematography ever done in the history of film.

In all five of the westerns that Stewart and Mann did together the supporting roles were perfectly cast. No exception here, right down to parts that might only have a few lines, the characters are firmly etched with those lines.

Stewart is a cynical hard-bitten loner in this film whose only real friend is his sidekick Walter Brennan. It's Brennan's death at the hands of the villains that makes him want to finally free the gold settlement from the bad guys and incidentally redeem himself in the process.

John McIntire is the head villain of the piece and he was an under-appreciated actor with a vast range. He could play delightful old codgers, authority figures and in this case a particularly nasty and crafty villain. 

One of the best westerns ever.

Sentiment: positive
Beating the bad guys... Again is the tag line for this movie, it exposes so much truth about it.

Home Alone one and two, film classics. Home Alone three and four, a good film if you're three! Like Sharkboy and Lavagirl, as hard as it tries to be funny, it's not. Culkin is replaced by Alex D'Linz or something else. He's a very bland actor with bland performances, but it's not entirely his fault, the writing called for bland vocabulary and bland expressions. The pranks are just copied from the first two with different crooks, and you'd have to be blind to think those chicken pox are real. A good choice if you are a preschool teacher in which is showing this film on a rainy day. And to make things worst, a totally different cast, go see if you don't believe me, but you'll regret it.

Sentiment: negative
I think Cliff Robertson certainly was one of our finest actors. He has a half dozen classics to his credit. He does fine here as the heavy, but the direction is so bad and the pacing so tiresome, it never gets off the mark. The story starts off well although it makes me wonder how he could count on his wife hanging herself. Still he mugs well and carries things along. The death knell is twofold. First of all, if we were to take the amount of time characters spend walking from one room to another or one part of the house to another, it would eat up about a third of the movie. Add to that, Robertson's character sitting up in bed in the blue light, looking confused, that might add another chunk. I agree with those that said a half hour shorter would have made it a pretty decent, though insignificant film. The biggest weakness is just a convoluted plot that, when all is said and done, leaves incredible questions. I'm not putting in spoilers, but when it ends, don't think too much. I can come up with ten what-ifs without raising a sweat. It would have been better if it had remained a ghost story.

Sentiment: negative
Frank Sinatra was far from the ideal actor for westerns. He was a great actor, From Here to Eternity and The Man with The Golden arm are a proof of that, but he did not have the physique of a western hero, you identified him as an urban guy. But he tried to do his job well in Johnny Concho, the fact that the film was a failure at the box office was not his fault. I blame it on two factors: a) the story was too unusual, specially in the fact that Sinatra behaves more like a villain than as a hero throughout the movie. In a genre where people kind of expected a certain pattern, to break away from it the film has to be very good. b) the story is not convincing, it is hard to believe that a whole town will allow Sinatra to do anything he wants just because they are afraid of his brother. Also when a man shows him a special holster that will open sideways so he has not to draw the gun you wonder that if that will make him invincible, why all the gunfighters have not adopted it? I think that this film should not have been withdrawn, because any film with Sinatra is worth seeing, and in spite of its shortcomings it is still enjoyable

Sentiment: negative
I have not yet seen anyone slate this film and i think i may be the first.

It was awful. I actually didn't watch the end of it. It was like watching a boring soap or a really good one (all soaps are crap). The actors were poor and storyline was bad. The person who rated it 10/10 has no idea what he is on about. The script was awful. 2 People was in an angry conversation together involving threats and you expect the good guy to say some thing really good and beat the crap out of him but no. He says "If you do that ... I will hurt you" Hahahahaha. If comedy is your thing, watch away. Please do not watch this film because ... It's CRAP!!! 

Summary: Poor acting, bad fights, bad script.

Don't watch! Of course this is in my opinion.

Sentiment: negative