DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The first Cruel Intentions, the original, is my favorite movie of all time. It was an absolute masterpiece. So how on earth could they make a sequel so downright bad. Sarah Michelle Gellar was perfect in the first movie. In this one, Amy Adams sucks. She is terrible. And couldn't they have found a chick who actually looked like Sarah Michelle Gellar? At least the same hair color!!! i mean come on. Robin Dunn isn't as bad as Adams, but he is absolutely terrible when compared to Ryan Phillipe. The Sebastian in the first film is devious, deceitful, and much more evil than the Sebastian in the prequel. And what is up with the story line. It basically goes like this...

1- Sebastian has a bad rep at his first school, so the movie says, although it mentions nothing about him and his dating life, and how he has been with girls 2- Sebastian moves to New York, and just suddenly decides he's going to turn himself around. He "falls in love" with Danielle (might i remind you that in the original, Sarah Michelle giller says quote "you broke up with THE FIRST PERSON you ever loved because i said to- so how can he have been in love in the prequel???). And he's all nice and charming, and all "good person", as he turns down sex from the chick his dad was doing.

3- He does a complete 180, and ends up in a threesome at the end of the movie, and then seducing Cherry.

I mean, its terrible. And i loved the first one so much. I haven't even seen the third one yet. I hope to god its better than this prequel.

Sentiment: negative
There's no getting around it-- this movie is terrible. I've seen the old Christopher Lee/Fu Manchu movies, I'm familiar with the characters and it's serial origins, but it's still just godawful. However, Peter Sellers' genius still shines through with his portrayal of Nayland Smith, with echoes of sadness, tragedy, and strength simmering through a stoic facade; it's a performance I place on par with Peter Cushing's portrayal of Van Helsing but done in a tenth of the cumulative screen time of all Cushing's "Dracula" movies. If the movie was done in a more serio-comic vein like BUBBA HO-TEP by way of the 1960's AVENGERS TV show, this could've been something special. If you're a Fu Manchu or Peter Sellers completest, this is something you need to see, but it's a pass for anyone else.

Sentiment: negative
I went to see Glenn McQuaid's "I Sell The Dead" in it's North American premiere at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival. Seeing as this is the second showing worldwide I didn't quite know what to expect of this film, especially having not seen the short film that inspired this big screen adaptation.

I'll start off with a slightly more elaborate plot synopsis, without giving away any spoilers.

This movie is about Arthur Blake, how he became a grave robber and the interesting and supernatural discoveries that both he and his mentor discovered.

The costume and set design in this film were excellent. I was amazed to hear that the entire film was shot in and around New York. The costumes were very accurate to the time, really bringing you as a viewer into the mindset of the time. This movie works just as well as a period-piece as it does a horror-comedy.

The interaction between the two leads was very fluid. They played off each others acting with ease. The dialogue between the two was very well written, with Glenn adding his comedic touch even in tense situations.

The story is very encompassing and the ball gets rolling from the very start. I'd compare it to a visual page turner, always wondering just what will happen next. The characters themselves are all very vivid and unique adding different emotional layers to the film itself.

All in all, I recommend this film for anyone in the mood for some dark humour, with a bit of horror mixed in.

9/10

Sentiment: positive
A Delta Force Army unit, assigned to find a batch of missing Green Beret bad-asses not known for going completely missing, will be in a fight for survival against a cloaked skeleton man, the supposed spirit of an ancient Indian warrior who was revived when archaeologists disturbed his grave. The Skeleton Man rides a horse and has the ability to propel to and fro using a type of dimensional portal, and seems unaffected by bullet-fire and explosives. The Skeleton Man's horse leaves no hoof prints and he can ride from behind and around his prey silently. The film's point-of-view through the Skeleton Man's eyes looks at his prey with a different color. In other words, he's not seemingly human, so how can Captain Leary(Michael Rooker, as grizzled and intense as ever)and his gang of would-be commandos stop this menace? For some reason, the Skeleton Man murders employees of a nearby chemical plant. What are the Skeleton Man's motives for slaughtering endless human beings? And, why is a blind Indian living in the forest our commandos inhabit spared if the Skeleton Man, as a human, slaughtered his entire tribe to prove himself? 

As completely stupid as it sounds. Just unbelievable horrible. This is the kind of film that can deaden brain cells. Casper Van Dien gets second billing in the credits just under Rooker, yet is saddled with a ridiculously underwritten character who exits the film quite early. Rooker deserves better than this. If I were an actor, I wouldn't want this movie in my resume. The Skeleton Man is a reject Templer Knight from a de Ossorio film. He has a spear which can merely knock certain people down while exploding the head of a woman on impact. An arrow shot from the Skeleton Man's bow actually destroys the propeller of a chopper plane. For nearly 99 % of the film, bullets are shot at the Skeleton Man and he can go in and out of that portal thingee yet, at the end, all of a sudden, he becomes vulnerable to attack. Oh, and the horses also change as the Skeleton Man freely moves through the forest from that portal.The film is written and edited by clowns. The attack scenes are poorly constructed and the characters, who are supposed to be experienced pros, make really bad decisions throughout this film. The mind boggles with this film. Good for some laughs, and some gore scenes make this hunk of pure crap watchable as a trash movie.

Sentiment: negative
Okay, I'll admit right up front that the Inki cartoons made by Loony Tunes are pretty offensive and I can understand why Warner Brothers has pulled them off the market. Seen today, the huge-lipped and very stereotypical Inki is not politically correct. However, the cartoons were well-made and it's a shame they aren't released with some sort of explanatory prologue (such as the one with Leonard Maltin they included with some recent politically incorrect Donald Duck cartoons that were recently released on DVD). In other words, throwing out the cartoons completely is to forget our history. Plus, Inki, Little Black Sambo and other racist cartoons are out there--especially on the internet.

This Inki cartoon has our little hero out hunting. At first, he's chasing a cute little caterpillar but later accidentally happens upon a lion--a lion that is more than happy to make Inki his dinner. However, through all this, a weird Minah appears again and again...and eventually you'll see why this bird is so important to the story.

Cute, well made and clever. I like the Inki cartoons. Plus, I take pleasure in showing them to extremely thin-skinned liberal friends just to watch them have apoplectic fits or even heart attacks. Loads of fun, folks!

Sentiment: positive
This is the epitome of bad 80's film-making, unless you are a pre-pubescent girl. Riding on a big name like madonna, a story line that physically assaults one's intelligence and humour that is most suited for a nursery school. If there was ever any doubt i think this turd of a movie clearly displays Madonna's absolute lack of acting talent and made me feel highly embarrassed on her behalf. The only thing i can't believe is that they ever let the director near another movie again. Madonna spends most of the movie prancing around like an infantile rag doll, and talking like a baby. It is painfully obvious that the only reason this movie was ever made was due to the fact that Madonna was a big name in pop music at the time. DO NOT BE DUPED INTO SEEING THIS AWFUL ATTEMPT TO CASH IN ON POP STARDOM. Stay away at all costs!

Sentiment: negative
Simon Pegg stars as Sidney Young, a stereotypically clumsy idiot Brit working as a celebrity journalist in this US comedy. After getting a very lucky break he starts work at the highly respected Sharps magazine run by a reliably on form Jeff Bridges in New York. It's more The Devil Wears Prada than Shaun of the Dead. The unlikely love interest is provided by Kirsten Dunst who works well with Pegg for the laughs but they don't exactly set the screen ablaze with their passion.

Sidney goes through some emotional challenges while trying to decide if he should forget about his journalistic principles in order to get material in the magazine. Of course he's eventually seduced by the glitz and glamour of the world of celebrities especially the young starlet Sophie Maes (Transformers' Megan Fox). Fans of Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Spaced will wonder if Pegg himself ever experienced similar feelings in real life with this film and to an extent Run Fat Boy Run as one of the UK's best comic talents being ruined by the US.

All in all this is a forgettable comedy. Please come back to us Simon, we can forgive and forget.

Sentiment: negative
I adored this, but I am an 80's kid. I loved Rainbow Bright my whole childhood. I don't know if little ones these days would be very interested in the show, mine wasn't. (But thats okay, I bought it for me anyway. I just brought the little one so the guy at the checkout stand wouldn't look at me funny.)I love the non violent drama, and the colorful scenery. It just reminds me of a simpler time before cartoons had more violence than our local news can legally show. :) Although I may be just a little biased on the subject. Afterall I was Rainbow Bright 6 years in a row for Halloween........I wonder if they make a Rainbow Bright costume for adults. Lol.

Sentiment: positive
I watched the version with pathetic American over-dubs, maybe this made it much worse, but from what I could make out the film was pretty bad anyway. It seemed low budget. The visuals reminded me of a second rate TV movie, random white dog substituted for Dogmatix, embarrassing 60's BBC costumes, etc. Mainly though, I feel like the characters in the movie did not behave anything like the characters in the comic, and as a result I never felt willing to even try to forgive the poor look of the film. It is always going to be hard to capture the feel of the comics in a film without using animation, and I didn't feel this attempt was worth it ultimately.

Sentiment: negative
This is a top finnish film this year,although Tango Kabaree comes close.The Director Lampela made couple of years back another nice little film called Rakastin epätoivoista naista (I was in love with a desperate woman).Joki is truly true-to-life beautiful film of one saturday afternoon in a little village/town.The actors are maybe not so handsome or beautiful but they do act beautifully.I certainly do hope that many of them get JUSSI statue (finnish OSCAR) next spring.I think this film could make it abroad as well.

Sentiment: positive
I Caught This Movie On T.V. Last Night And You Know Danny Masterson Was A Pretty Good Actor In The Film, And Its Great To See Him In Something Other Than That 70s Show. The Film Isnt Rated But In My Opinion I Would Rate It (R) Just Because Of The Nudity And Plenty Of Adult Content. But All In All I Loved It, I Thought That Dirt's Wisecracks were pretty funny. Its Just Basically About A Guy Who Has No Job, Girlfriend, Or Money And Eventually Gets A Job As A Private Investigator (more of a messenger really.)He Gets Framed For The Murder Of A Rock Star And The Rock Stars Girlfriend Is One Of The People That Really Need To Help Him Out. I Give It....*** 3 Stars.

Sentiment: positive
"Hundstage" is seidl's first fiction film (before this he directed great documentaries as "animal love" or "models"). seidl worked on this project for more than 3 years but it only cost around 2 million dollars. the actors are very good especially the non-professional actors who nearly played themselves.the cinematography is good too. the whole film is shocking disturbing and some scenes may be too much for "ordinary" viewers.the film shows a lot of sex and violence but also that people are lonely and not able to communicate with each other. finally i've to say that this is one of the best and most rewarding austrian films in the past years. please excuse my bad english.



Sentiment: positive
Normally, I don't like revenge films....PERIOD. But Double Impact has a little more than your typical revenge plot premise. You see, DI has action, accuracy, exotic locales(i.e. Hong Kong), awesome gun battles, and enough martial arts to satisfy your cravings for impressive unarmed combat. Like all revenge flicks, it has villains you'd love to throw out of a plate-glass window on the top floor of a 40-story building! However, Double Impact has none of the sensationalist crap that suffocates the plot and the elitist, racist, and venomous social stereotypes that invaded "Eye for an Eye" and "Death Wish 2".

But in the plot department Double Impact is as transparent as saran wrap. Chad and Alex's parents were killed by a mob hit squad connected to a family friend with money problems or at least that's what I remembered. The explanation of why the boys were talking in French accents is a lousy one. It wasn't the watery plot that made this movie bad, but the use of clichéd lines and moves from other movies (from Lethal Weapon to The Princess Bride) really made it worse. But nonetheless Double Impact is still watchable. But why is that shitty movies like this have villains(for example,that greedy British guy that killed Chad and Alex's parents and that lethal lesbian redhead chick) you would love to hate with fiber of your being?

Sentiment: negative
The sequel to the ever popular Cinderella story reminded me somewhat of what they did with one of the Beauty & the Beast movies. It's basically three short stories rolled into 1.

OK, the mice are adorable (I love Gus! He's sooo cute!), and Lucifer's awesome (as usual). I liked some of the newer characters as well, (Pom Pom was adorable and I did like Prudence.). Still, the storyline was somewhat limited, but still very cute. So, I vote 7/10.

Sentiment: positive
If you are a fan of Zorro, Indiana Jones, or action in general this is a must-see. Directed by Republic's ace team of William Witney and John English, and starring Reed Hadley as Don Diego/Zorro, this serial delivers! I won't bore you with the plot (who cares? less talking, more fighting); what really matters here is Hadley's superb interpretation of the character/s and the stunt work of Dale van Sickel and Yakima Canutt. 

***STUNT SPOILERS FOLLOW ***

You can see the influence this film had on Lucas and Spielberg -- Zorro gets caught in the original version of the Star Wars trash compactor in one chapter, trapped on a rope bridge a'la Temple of Doom in another, does a Raiders horse-to-coach transfer and even flees through a tunnel while the baddies knock over a huge water tank and flood the tunnel behind him, exactly as Mola Ram does to Indy in Temple of Doom. In addition to all this, the whip action is great as Zorro disarms villains, swings to safety, etc. with his trusty lash. Most of the sword work is fair to lame, except for chapter one, which features a terrific sword brawl in a cantina choreographed by sword/stunt legend Ralph Faulkner, who makes a rare screen appearance as the evil Rodriguez. This was the first serial I ever saw, on Matinée at the Bijou when I was a kid and I have been hooked on them ever since. 

Zorro's Fighting Legion delivers "Z" goods!

Sentiment: positive
Robert Altman, Nicolas Roeg, John-Luc Goddard--you were expecting a fun film the entire family could enjoy? These and other directors were obviously chosen because they have not followed the mainstream, but created it. For those that complain that they did not adhere to the original story of the opera--How often does the music in a film directly relate to what is going on in the film? It is the mood that counts. This is what I believe the directors of these movies were doing: creating a contemporary mood for old operas. For the most part they succeed wonderfully. With all these operas, who is going to like them all. We could have used more Beverly Sills.

Finally, what is art (even opera) without a few naked women?

Sentiment: positive
This was just plain terrible. I read this book for school, i made As on all of the tests, and to see it like this! My teacher forced me and 20 other people to watch it, and it was worse than Leonard Part 6, Plan 9 from Outer Space, and Hudson Hawk put together. The thing that made this film so terrible was enough reasons to want to kill yourself over. First of all, it was made on Hallmark. Second, the acting was terrible. Third, it was like completely different from the book. Literally, it was so bad I asked myself to be excused. Basically, I would rather watch Basic Instinct 2 than watch this. Take my advice, don't watch this film. No one would want to watch this. It was horrible. HORRIBLE!

Sentiment: negative
The details in The Big Trail were so incredible that I felt that the movie was made at the time it represents. I have never seen wagons that were so real! They were big, loaded with accessories, and even felt as though they had been filled with details under the canvas covers that was never meant to be seen. Every speck of dirt, every scratch, every splinter was there. Modern day computer technology could never recreate the scenes of the numerous wagons as they move across the land or circle to fend off indians. The wagons were all real, individual vehicles, each with its own real team of horses or oxen.

The actors clothing could not have felt more genuine. With the exception of John Wayne's buckskin outfit and Marguerite Churchill's nice dress, the clothes were very common looking, tattered, or dirty in an authentic looking way. Many of the actors and actresses were born before electricity and indoor plumbing were common, and they must have felt comfortable with the surroundings. All the indians were real indians rather than white extras painted tan.

Women of the old west had to be sturdy because there was a lot of work. In every scene showing work done by the people of the wagon train, women are shown chopping wood, hauling logs, etc. This realism was so natural looking that it did not come across as a statement on the role of women of the day rather than a fact of survival.

The plot of revenge and romance is played well. Nothing is overstated or overplayed.

Something was lost along the way in the 1930's in Hollywood. As much as I love the fake scenery and controlled environment of old movies, The Big Trail manages to feel real above all else. The more I see big budget movies of the silent era, the more I like them. I can think of few movies of the 1930's that I have seen that equal the grandeur of the best of the 1920's. If there were home movies made in the days of wagon trains, The Big Trail is what they would look like.

Sentiment: positive
i really liked this film.it features John Wayne in his first starring performance.even then,you can tell Wayne has a real presence,although he wouldn't really mature into the icon he is known for until Stagecoach,9 years later in 1939.it's about settlers from all over the country heading to the new west to colonize it.Wayne's character Breck Coleman joins up,but for his own personal reasons.most of the main actors were stage actors and had never done a film before,which makes the movie even more amazing.they managed to create believable,distinctive characters and there is quite an oddball mix here.Cimarron would come out a year later,and had a very similar story,though i didn't like it as much as this movie.for me,The Big Trail is a strong 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film (it's English title is "Who's Singing Over There?") at the 1980 Montreal International Film Festival. It won raves then... and disappeared. A terrible shame. It is brilliant. Sublime, ridiculous, sad, and extremely funny. The script is a work of art. It's been 19 years and I've seen only a handful of comedies (or any other genre, for that matter) that can match its originality.

Sentiment: positive
This is simply the most astonishing movie you will ever see. I thought it was just another documentary, but it really is something else. It doesn't try to teach you anything, it shows you how life works in nature.

I won't talk about the quality of the pictures, because you obviously know from other comments it is unmatched.

Earth is funny, tense and sad. It can make you laugh, it can make you cry. Sometimes both at the same time. This is the first movie that made me cry, not because you feel sorry for the animals, but because you come to realise how fragile our planet is and what treasure we were blessed with, yet we don't appreciate it one bit.

This movie should be shown obligatory in schools. It is the most wonderful film you will ever see, so go and see it. Who knows, maybe it is the last time we might see our planet like this...

10/10, but I would easily rate it more if it were possible.

Sentiment: positive
Great horror comedy from Michael Davis.Iwas laughing so hard i almost peed! Great acting from Eric Jungman as the good guy who saves the day & great performance by the Jack Black-esquire like performance from Justin Urich. He was just divine in this film. This guy deserves to be a big star. Also,Aimee Brooks was good in the film as well as the girl in danger along with the guys from a killer reminiscent of Jeepers Creepers. The gore to was given in copious amounts & i loved it.I just hope they release a not rated version. Great low-budget Horror Comedy. The dead cat in the hotel sex scene is just gruesomely funny! ***** out of *****

Sentiment: positive
Saw a screener of this before last year's Award season, didn't really know why they gave them out after the voting had ended, but whatever, maybe for exposure, at the least, but the movie was a convoluted mess. Sure, some parts were funny in a black humor kind of way, but none of the characters felt very real to me at all. There was not one person that I could connect with, and I think that is where it failed for me. Sure, the plot is somewhat interesting and very subversive towards Scientology, WOW! What a grand idea...let's see if that already hasn't been mined to the point of futility. The whole ordeal feels fake, from the lighting, the casting, the screenplay to the horrible visual effects(which is supposed to be intentional, I can tell, and so can everyone else, no one is laughing with you though). Anyways, I hope it makes it out for sale on DVD at least, I wouldn't want a project that a lot of people obviously put a lot of effort into get completely unnoticed. But it's tripe either way. Boring tripe at that.

Sentiment: negative
What more can I say? The acting was, almost without exception, amateurish. The directing and continuity were pitiful. The sceenplay was predictable down to the very last scene and the dialog tedious. One of the features on the DVD was labeled "Gag Reel" but that could have been a description of a viewer's reaction to most of the movie.

One of the most amusing things was in the director's comments on the DVD. He said, with a straight face, that he had set out to make a movie with high production values and a name cast - and that he had succeeded. With delusions like that it's easy to understand how the movie turned out as it did.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect was the monster. The darkwolf suit was a modified ape suit (per the 'making of' feature on the DVD) and rather looked it. The mask and claws were little better than off the shelf jobs from any costume store. The cgi effects were painfully obvious and of quality similar to an inexpensive video game.

Sentiment: negative
This movie has some good performances, as others have pointed out, but suffers (as others have pointed out, except for the people who apparently are either friends of the filmmaker or the cast to otherwise explain why they would deem this a "10") from some self-conscious and self-absorbed film school padding and excess plots. This is the type of plot that Sex In The City could handle in a half hour episode, so there was no reason for it to be even an 88 minute movie. A perfect example of wasted footage is the fast forwarding montage in the first third of the movie. Some of the back story is merited, but too much time, for example, was spent on Daria character with the anal sex boyfriend and on the back story for Paulie, who was not a realistic character, although the actor did a decent job with the lines he was given. 

The worst aspect of the movie was the level of amateurish parts: from typos in the typed material, to bad jumps and edits, poor camera positions, angles, lighting problems throughout and, most glaringly, a poorly written script with a badly developed concept. If the writer (also the director and lead) had collaborated with someone, he might not have ended up with a 100% rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes, which further belays the ability of anyone to truly believe the people who gave it a 10 on the rating system here.

Sentiment: negative
A film starring Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, two respected and talented actors, sounds like a great idea. An independent film sounds even better. The studios will control less of the content allowing the actors and writers and director more creativity.

But then why is this movie so bland? Ask the dust.

This film assumes right off the bat that we are deeply invested in the characters. No one is given a proper back story, so we don't ever know why the characters act the way they do.

Explanations for physical and emotional scars are left to our imagination, if you still have one left at the end of this movie.

I told a friend that I went to see this film, and that I thought it was awful.

Her question: "Not even Colin Farrell could save it?" My response: "Not even Colin Farrell's ass could save it."

Sentiment: negative
I rented the film (I don't think it got a theatrical release here) out expecting the worse. The previews made the film look awful. I was in fact very surprised, it was well worth watching; it was loosely scripted, almost like an ensemble piece of film. It had some very funny moments in it and although flawed is an effective satire on the show and the people on the show without being too scathing. It is flawed, mainly by the awful soundtrack of bludgeoning 'comedy' effects but on the whole it comes across as honest and generally true to form of the show in an altmanesque or Larry Sanders way.

At the moment it is the fashion to be critical of Jerry Springer, he is also an easy target. Springer could have made Citizen Kane and it would be proclaimed 'the worst film ever made'. I recommend this film for anybody interested in the show. A flawed but innovative and interesting piece of film.

Sentiment: positive
Yeah, it's a chick flick and it moves kinda slow, but it's actually pretty good - and I consider myself a manly man. You gotta love Judy Davis, no matter what she's in, and the girl who plays her daughter gives a natural, convincing performance.

The scenery of the small, coastal summer spot is beautiful and plays well with the major theme of the movie. The unknown (at least unknown to me) actors and actresses lend a realism to the movie that draws you in and keeps your attention. Overall, I give it an 8/10. Go see it.

Sentiment: positive
I absolutely love this film. Everything about it. It almost felt like watching me and my friends on screen. The way this movie was filmed was a pure masterpiece, very original and creative. I related to these characters and even had the same thoughts as some. I'm really glad I ran across this movie. If only there were more genius' like justin out there!

Sentiment: positive
One of the greatest movies to come out of the 80's, Dirty Dancing was a low-budget film with high-budget returns. With a soundtrack that makes you want to get up and dance, to a love story that all of us wish we could live (at least if you're female), this is a movie that you will want to watch over and over again.

The music, which is what drives the movie, is upbeat and flows well with the emotions which are drawn from the viewer. From classic '60's hits like "Love Man" by Otis Redding and "Big Girls Don't Cry" by Frankie Valli to pure '80's hits like Eric Carmen's "Hungry Eyes" and Frank Zappacosta's "Overload", Dirty Dancing is a mix of fun and sensual, showing the transformation of a young girl from shy teenager into a blossoming womanhood, all against the beautiful backdrop of a summer romance that we all hope and wish turned into more.

The dancing in "Dirty Dancing" is not to be forgotten. Cynthia Rhodes shines in her role as Penny, a dancer who could challenge even the most fluid and lithe gymnasts. Patrick Swayze does more than a fantastic job and shows off more and more of his skills, not just as an actor, but dancer and singer as well. And Jennifer Grey shines as Baby, while her transformation in dancing portrays her transformation in status as well.

All in all, Dirty Dancing is one of the best movies of all time, and well worth watching at least once. It's doubtful that the first beats of the Ronette's "Be My Baby" in the opening title won't snare your attention and draw you in to a magical world of sensual dance and musical enchantment.

Sentiment: positive
Terrible. Absolutely terrible. Long, confusing and unrewarding. After about three hours of this painful mess the ending truly is the final nail in the coffin. Not even the magnificent, sexy, beautiful goddess Francesca Annis can save this poor adaptation of Agatha Christie's work. The plot drags and drags and time goes by slowly and suddenly you realize that you don't even have any idea of what's going on anymore. By the end even with the usual explanation by the villain there's still a lot that's left unexplained and then it's over. A complete waste of time and without a doubt one of the worst adaptation's to bear the name of Agatha Christie.

Sentiment: negative
...and my reasons for which are simple- there are so many great films presented and discussed here (most of them by their own directors and stars), so many clips of infamous moments in 70's movie history, and in fact a number of films I have yet to see, that it wouldn't be fair to grade this work. By this logic I shouldn't have given grades to other movie documentaries like Martin Scorsese's Personal Journey through American Movies and My Voyage to Italy. But while those films were on the basis of one man's view of cinema, narrating through most of the way, Richard LaGravanese and (the late) Ted Demmes' A Decade Under the Influence lets the films and the creators speak entirely for themselves. 

What makes 'Decade' worth at least one watch for film buffs, or just anyone who likes the films of the late 60's-70's in America, are the levels that it goes to, that in the uncut version (three hours, not the theatrical version, which I have no comment on) plenty of ground is covered. Interviews include the likes of Scorsese, Robert Altman, Sidney Lumet, Julie Christie, Jon Voight, Francis Ford Coppola, Paul Schrader, Pam Grier, Bruce Dern, Peter Bogdanovich, Roger Corman, Dennis Hopper, Robert Towne, etc, and there's a constant flow of insight from start to finish. The way the clips and directors/actors pop up, edited together in a flashy and quick style, is also fascinating. 

The one down comment I have on the documentary is that most of the information presented has been reported on in various books, like Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, and though I haven't seen the movie version of that book yet I'm sure it would have covered many of the films and directors and incidents as here (in fact, the book of that is one of the best I've ever read. HOWEVER, this documentary serves as something special for film buffs and occasional movie goers of the future- they can look at this and learn not only about such well known pictures as Easy Rider, The Last Picture Show, Annie Hall, Coming Home, and lessor knowns like Scarecrow, Panic in Needle Park, The Landlord, Joe, They Shoot Horses Don't They. They can also learn about who influenced them (new waves of Europe and Asia), who they served as influences for, and how the subject matter that created controversy after controversy still serves as intriguing and chancy material for the contemporary crowd. Seek this out!

Sentiment: positive
Another example that we should stay away from trying to do spectacular action movies in Sweden, it doesn´t work, except for Widerbergs still unsurpassed MANNEN PÅ TAKET. Stormare does the best he can, I suppose, and some scenes are mildly effective, but the plot is FULL of holes. Why does Hamilton continue the attack on the base, knowing that his wife is held hostage? It was fun to see Mark Hamill, but his Bad Guy-part was very underwritten. I´m constantly amazed that relatively big Swedish movies like this get made without a sensible, functioning script. 1 out of 5.

Sentiment: negative
I love a good Western movie, but this was more like watching a play on stage or an act at the local street carnival show. I could only stand 38 minutes of it in hopes that it would improve, but it only got worse and I had to end it. Each actor(s) stated the lines as if reading directly from the script or cue cards. There was too much predictability to the lines and actions not as if a natural occurrence or conversation. The wig on Rachel Kimsey was obvious. The actresses playing Native American sisters, could have played non-native parts and should have. Wardrobe for the Native Americans could have been better and a little more authentic looking. If I decide to watch it with any friends in the future, I will do so, not with the expectations of watching a good Western, but with the expectations of watching an amateur comedy film production.

Sentiment: negative
Hunt for Justice is about the setup of Slobadon Milosevic for his trial in the Hague. While it was a little too clinical in presentation the subject matter could have gotten very depressing very quickly. A Canadian Judge, Louise Arbour, becomes the Chief War Crimes Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the UN in Yugoslavia. She battles everyone to pull out the evidence that sent Milosevic to trial. Not a bad docu-drama with class A directing and production work. The 'evidence' was disturbing by the shear discussion of the facts, happily they didn't go into too much detail and no real pictures of the tortured.

Sentiment: positive
Manna from Heaven is heavenly. This is a movie for the family -- teens and grandparents can enjoy it together. But it isn't syrupy sweet or silly. The characters really are "characters". The plot is somewhat complex and you have to pay attention, but it's like putting a puzzle together as it all falls into place bit by bit. The period beginning is like watching an old photo album, or remembering back when. It's extremely well done with very accurate hairstyles and costumes. The story moves along quickly with twists, turns and lots of fun.

A special treat is to watch the large cast of familiar faces, many of whom we haven't seen in much too long a time. Part of the fun is to recognize and name them mentally as they appear, though this can be distracting. Cloris Leachman by the end of the film looks as if she's had a make-over on "Oprah". I had never seen Faye Grant in a movie -- only knew her as Grace's mother in the TV series "Saving Grace". She was great, even minus the southern accent. And I didn't even recognize Shelly Duvall. The five sisters who created this very lovely film are a very talented quintet and Sister Theresa is a heavenly treasure.

Sentiment: positive
Bridges's drama about a reporter who discovers some flaws in the safety precautions taken at a nuclear powerplant is directed well and a pretty interesting film from the late 70s. Its not amazing, but its solid, the acting is pretty good especially Jack lemmon, but Douglas and Fonda were good too. It was a pretty good screenplay and Bridges's direction was solid and suitable. This is definitely not one of the best films of the 70s, but its one of the better ones. A good early Michael Douglas film and Lemmon in his prime.--- IMDb Rating: 7.2, my rating:, so in simple words, solid but not amazing... thats what this film is, solid but not amazing 8/10

Sentiment: positive
holy sweet murder this is quite possibly the least funny movie i've ever seen. you can take my word for this as truth because it's playing on television right now. it's really one of the most pathetic productions i've ever seen. there is not a single redeemable aspect of this flick. it just lacks any humor whatsoever. the only good thing it possibly has going for it is that it's so unfunny that it's wholly unmemorable. in fact, i just sat through some ridiculous sub-plot and i can't really tell you what went on. the only reason i can even possibly remember having seen this movie is because it's so absolutely humorless it will stick in my mind forever based on that alone.

an absolutely must miss. if your friend wants to show it to you, shoot him and save yourself the boredom.

Sentiment: negative
I had the misfortune to watch this last night on the BBC, I expect I may have been the only viewer. From the beginning there was something quite wrong about the movie, after a few minutes of viewing i managed to work out what it was. THE MOVIE WAS BAD! Not bad in a good way like Wolfpack or a Seagal film just plain old shoddy bad.

Why was this made into a movie? I've seen a few episodes of the TV series and thought it was alright but I only saw repeats of that because they made this.

I spent most of the film trying to work out what the story was and by the end I was none the wiser. I seem to remember at some point a character, maybe Farina's mentions that the Mod Squad can get in to places regular cops can't. The 'place' turns out to be a 'club', one of the toughest places to get into, maybe it was student night? I lost track of the plot at this point or maybe there was no plot and the movie was just chopped together from various leftovers from other TV series remakes.

Was it an action comedy? I don't remember any laughs.

Overall this movie lacked the real scene stealing power of someone like Seymour Hoffman as the bad guy. With him Ribisi would have had somebody to bounce off.

Sentiment: negative
When I first heard about "Down To Earth," I was pretty excited. I'm a pretty big fan a Chris Rock, he was especially hilarious in Dogma. But this film proved to be a disappointment. Chris Rock's performance was not nearly as good as his past performances, and the movie was just very badly directed as a whole.

First off, Chris Rock. He plays the entire movie as a standup comedy routine. Obviously, this works fine in the scenes where he's supposed to be doing standup, but in the rest of the movie, it doesn't. Even when he's talking to one other character, he seems to think he's trying to make a roomful of people laugh. He has a few funny moments, but they mostly come during the standup scenes (no wonder they decided to make his character a comedian). As for the rest of the cast, they're pretty much there just to give Rock someone to talk to, none of them stand out.

Also, the movie was poorly directed. The movie has basically a one-joke plot: old white guy acting like a young black comedian. While I prefer movies with more than one joke, this still could have worked, and been quite funny. The problem was, we saw too much of Rock and not enough of the old white guy. It's supposed to be funny because it's this white guy telling Chris Rock's jokes, but for most of the time, we just see Chris Rock, so it's not nearly as funny. The few scenes where they decide to show us the white guy talking like Rock are, in fact, hilarious. If he had been shown more, the movie would have been a lot funnier.

Overall, a few moments of laughter can't make up for the fact that "Down To Earth" is poorly acted, and poorly directed. This one was a pretty big disappointment.

Rating: 4/10

Sentiment: negative
Classe Tous Risques (The Big Risk) is repeatedly recommended every time I look up a Jean-Pierre Melville film that I had to give it a watch as soon as possible. Since I've been discovering Melville and seemingly working backwards through his filmography, it would be easy for me to mistake this as one of his films, but it was made in 1960, by Claude Sautet, before Melville would come and stake his claim on french neo-noir.

Classe Tous Risques has two of the best lead men of the time, Lino Ventura and Jean-Paul Belmondo. Ventura plays Abel, a gangster exiled in Italy with his wife and two kids, who wants to come back to Paris because the police are closing in on him. After a roaring and fast paced opening with a big surprise, Abel eventually gets hooked up with Eric Stark (Belmondo) who wants to get into the criminal underworld. Stark becomes Abel's chauffeur and eventual only friend in an underworld that turns it's back on Abel after everything he's done and been through. The film shows the the duality of the two men, the older Abel at the end of his time after tragedy strikes him, and the younger Eric starting off the same way Abel did, falling in love with a beautiful woman who sticks with her man despite the world they are a part of. It never ends pretty for them, or their loved ones. Its one thing to see a individual criminal come to his demise, its different when he has loved ones he risks taking down with him.

Much like Melville's film, the seemingly simple story gets more subtlety complicated as it goes along. As usual, as what I feel with Melville's films, it left my head spinning (in a good way) and dying to re watch it again to pick up what I missed the first time. Classe Tous Risques is a definite keeper.

Sentiment: positive
This comic book style film is funny, has nicely paced action and a great futuristic style to it. Writer Steven de Souza, who also wrote Commando, gives Arnie plenty of lines to dish out: "Send me a copy," after signing a contract and stabbing a pen into the lawyers back; "What a pain in the neck," after strangling subzero with barbed wire; "He had to split," after slicing his body between his legs; and finally, as Killian slams through a billboard bearing his own face, Arnie concludes, "Now that hit the spot." Funnily enough, bears some similarities total recall, another sci-fi flick starring Schwarzenegger.

Sentiment: positive
Frustrating to watch because of one man's stubbornness to leave his native country for the dream land in Switzerland and what he does to achieve that creates heartache for all those involved. Along the journey he encounters scumbags who take advantage of other human suffering and desperation.

Sentiment: positive
I basically picked up this movie because I had seen Kitano Takashi's brilliant remake of Zatoichi and was in the mood for another updated samurai tale which also starred Asano Tadanobu. These two movies are worlds apart. Zatoichi added humor and depth to its characters and subverted traditional samurai movie clichés. Gojoe goes off the deep end in the other direction.

First off, I hate movies that have other characters inform the audience what the main character is like instead of having the character develop over the course of the movie. "You cannot decide whether you are a monk or a warrior" says almost every character in Benkei's presence, yet this inner turmoil is barely conveyed within the character himself. Instead of character development, we get bloated, boring, gory battle scenes. Asano's character is undeveloped and even he looks like he is bored and doesn't know what he is doing there. I know that he usually looks distant and cool and that is part of Asano's appeal, but this movie doesn't serve him.

A lot of the camera movement is nauseating. There is a scene that goes on forever in which the camera spins around the main characters until my wife and I felt like vomiting. The ending is ridiculous and rather anti-climatic. 

Its too bad that really good samurai movies aren't being made in Japan nowadays with this type of budget. The colors, scenery, and costumes were great, but the rest is just a loooong waste of time. I would rather see one of the kabuki versions of this myth.

Sentiment: negative
With a name like "10 Commandments" you would expect a film to be representative of the account in the Bible, specifically Exodus. Not so here. This is standard procedure with any Biblical Hallmark-made film. Remember "Noah"?? That was utter fiction and one of the worst films ever made. At least this film had "some" truth to the original story. However, Menerith, who was a major character in this movie - half-brother of Moses, is not in the original story. Other characters were absent, not to mention important events were completely eliminated. So what, you may ask? Because this should be representative of the actual story; otherwise, some might and do believe that is the way it actually happened. In today's age, people get their religion from movies instead of Church and reading the Bible. Also, it is a great error. See Revelation 22:18-19. The script is already written. Why change it? Other than the account in Exodus itself (which should be the main focus), you have the Cecil B. DeMille film to compare it to, which is clearly a far better presentation.

The night it first aired, my wife was anxious to see it. I told her not to get her hopes up because it was a Hallmark-film. She looked puzzled and said, "Why? Hallmark makes good movies". That might be so, but they butcher the Bible. I'm sorry to say that I was correct. Not just the story, but the acting as well. With today's technology, you should be able to make a wonderful Biblical movie. I'm still waiting...

Sentiment: negative
Watching this odd little adventure movie, it's hard to believe that it was directed by the same man who brought us such high quality Giallo classics as The Strange Vice of Mrs Wardh and The Case of the Scorpion's Tail, but it has to be said that despite it's low quality production values, Island of the Fish Men is an entertaining ride and one that surely deserves more praise than it's getting. Like many Italian films from the seventies, this is one is a rip off of a successful American film, the one in question this time being the critically panned Island of Dr Moreau. Sergio Martino's film takes ideas such as mutation, greed and adventure and moulds it into one slightly compelling film, which makes up for what it's lacks in coherency and logic with a load of mostly intriguing ideas. The central plot follows a boat which crashes on a small island. It quickly becomes apparent that not everything about this place is normal, and it soon transpires that half of the population has been turned into "fish men" - a cross between a man and a fish, which exist for purely selfish reasons...

The truth about this movie is that it's a lot more fun if you ignore the trashy production values. The central monsters look completely ridiculous, and much of the movie takes place on sets that look like they cost someone a few pennies - but the movie is well shot in spite of this, with the underwater photography being a particular highlight and the pacing of the movie is well done in that the film never becomes boring. The way that the plot comes together isn't exactly genius, but it takes in a lot of ideas and I've seen films made on plots with much less thought put into them than this one. The biggest location standout in the film is definitely the lost city of Atlantis. To be honest, I'm not a massive fan of adventure movies, and therefore don't see this lost city get mentioned much - but it is always nice to see it in a movie. The central island location is good in that it provides an apt setting for the story and also provides the movie with the right amount of mystery, as Martino makes good use of the voodoo theme. Overall, this isn't exactly a classic and there are certainly a lot worse trashy adventure movies out there than this one.

Sentiment: positive