DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
From the pen of Richard Condon (The Manchurian Candidate 1962) comes this muddled tale of political intrigue and assassination. The story, told in almost comic book fashion is difficult to swallow. All-star cast considered, this poor effort is not entirely the fault of the cast and crew: the novel was replete with the same short-comings. It seems as though at times the story is actually mocking the more sincere effort put forth in "Manchurian Candidate." A disappointment on all counts.

Sentiment: negative
This movies had to be the funniest movie i have ever seen in my entire life. I laughed so hard i almost puked. After the movie was done i laughed for about an hour just thinking about the very last seen in the movie. Its is definitely 100 times better than the first Jackass movie. I loved seeing all of them back together again. If you are squeamish or don't like raunchy childish humour you will not like this movie. If you can go in with an open mind and not take it so seriously then you will laugh your ass off. Its amazing no one was killed in this movie. Every seen in this movie is so original and so different from the next you will not know what to expect. 

Mike Webber

Sentiment: positive
This cartoon is short on plot, but is a visually stunning piece of work. There will be very, very minor spoilers: 

This short has a "story" that's incredibly slight-gnomes underground are responsible for the return of spring each year, yet must contend with a winter not yet ready to withdraw. Both the gnomes and the storm have their own songs. That's pretty much the plot, such as it is. But this cartoon isn't about the plot-it's about the color and animation. The visuals are exceptional. Back in 1936, such bright color was still something of a novelty and there's some incredibly inspired work here.

My favorite moments of the short surround the movement of the liquefied colors through pipes. At more than one point, there are a series of pipes aligned in a row, from the shortest to the tallest and the colors move through the pipes and the musical track makes it seem as though the row is a pipe organ.

The visuals of the battle between the emerging greenery and the winter storm which refuses to leave quietly are exceedingly well executed. These types of shorts were things which Hugh Harman and Rudolf Ising are noted for, but they probably also helped lead to their ultimate departure from MGM, because this cartoon probably went over budget and MGM finally decided that they could control costs better if the animation department were managed by someone a little more conscious of cost than Harman and Ising were.

This is truly a beautiful cartoon and is well worth seeing. It's available on the DVD Attack of the '30s Characters. Recommended, particularly if you like good animation.

Sentiment: positive
I just have to throw my two cents in. Relax, it's a comedy. Yes for the most part the characters are broadly written and acted. I can't think of many comedies where they aren't. This isn't a new release, it's out on video and airs on cable almost every week. Would I see it in a theater? Sure, I did, when it first came out. It's funny...that should be enough.

Even if I didn't like it at all I'd still watch it on cable for Michael Keaton. He's an underrated and under-appreciated actor. I can't think of another who is so capable in every genre. Nor can I think of one who's as successful. A comedic actor who's also an action star(short lived but still), who's also a romantic lead, who's also a dramatic actor; a villain and a hero. I can't think of any, at least not in Hollywood. Certainly none who have been successful at all those genres. I mean there's Tom Cruise but to me he's better at being Tom Cruise than becoming a character. However this isn't about Michael Keaton vs. Tom Cruise so I'll move on.

Gung Ho is worth renting, heck it's worth buying since you can probably find it for $10.00 or less at stores like Wal-Mart. It's worth watching on cable(if you have cable or satellite). It's one of those fun to watch movies. You can put your brain on pause, and just relax, and chuckle away.

To ask for more, in my honest opinion, is asking too much.

Sentiment: positive
Armored

The best part about driving an armored vehicle is that if any bums approach you at a red light asking for money, you can shoot them in the face.

And while the armoured guards in this thriller aren't using their protective power to purge the drifter population, they are using their position to fleece their employer.

When newcomer Ty (Columbus Short) lands a job with an armored trunk company, he feels like he has found his lot in life. Unfortunately, however, when he discovers that his co- workers (Matt Dillon, Jean Reno and Laurence Fishburne) are plotting to take the $42 M shipment for themselves, Ty must fortify himself  and the funds  inside the armored truck.

A tedious caper with a plodding plot and phoned-in performances, Armored is an utterly forgettable film.

Besides, if you really want to jack millions, it's a lot simpler to just disguise yourself as an ATM. (Red Light)

Sentiment: negative
I nearly fell asleep during a screening of this. Of a boring story that seems to go on forever, it follows several days in the life of a male prostitute who falls in love with one of his tricks. After a heated affair, the trick leaves a long letter explaining why they cannot be together and how they must go on their separate ways.

The male prostitute then goes on a downward self-destructive spiral trying to find his "one true love", repeatedly returning to the same places they frequented, looking for more clues or signs as to where he may locate his love.

In the meanwhile, he hooks up with one ugly guy (who I thought was also a male prostitute), a gay basher, and some guy who ends up having a "three-second sexual intercourse session" with him in a back alley.

It never ceases to amaze me how films STILL portray random sex acts as scenes that can take place in a brief matter of seconds, such as in this case where the trick barely has his pants unbuckled before thrusting three times and miraculously experiencing orgasm! 

All of these random encounters end with the sexual partner asking him to call them, to which he discards their telephone numbers.

There is a brief side-plot involving the main character visiting his busy mother who seems to have no time for his lifestyle. There is also another brief side-plot involving some random conversation with a young woman who has noticed him several times standing on the bridge from her window. And there is also one more brief side-plot involving him showing the letter to a male acquaintance, but the audience is not advised of his relation to this person.

None of these things really connect with each other, only to show us how lost and confused this young man really is. He seems to be living life like a ghost. There was one good scene in the entire movie that involved him rummaging through a yard sale looking for a particular record with the world's saddest song on it.

Otherwise, this movie just seems to go on forever. Filmed in black and white, it may seem very dreamlike, but sitting in the theater for nearly two hours watching this drivel will resemble something more like a nightmare!

I found the ending to be confusing as I wasn't quite sure whether the young man had died and gone to heaven? That would have been a nice pay off to end the misery that both audience and the main character had to endure in this meaningless tripe. But seeing as this is an "independent film", movies with endings like these are supposed to encourage you to "use your imagination". 

For those of you who are seeking out nudity, there are only brief scenes and most of them are filmed in such a way that anything suggestive are artfully concealed within the shadows. In other words, don't waste your time with this one.

My Rating - 2 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film first on my way home from Paris to Newark aboard Air France in August 1996. The film itself I believe is quite a masterpiece. It's the kind of film that people should be making. I still think Daniel Auteuil is one of the sexiest actors around. In this French film, he plays a divorced father and businessman who has lost his zest for life until he across a Down Syndrome man who lives in an institution with other Down Syndrome patients. The actors including the actor who actually has Down Syndrome create a believable friendship and relationship between these two unlikely men. Daniel's life and ours changes forever with the Down Syndrome man. He realizes that life is not just work and not play but for the living and loving and that's what life should be all about. The ending is kind of silly though but I still think it's one of my favorite movies. It's enough to bring a tear to your eye.

Sentiment: positive
A movie made for contemporary audience. The masses get to see what they want to see. Action, comedy, drama and of course sensuous scenes as well. This is not exactly a movie that one would feel comfortable watching with entire family. It isn't for eyes of children. I had to fast forward quite a number of scenes.

If it is just entertainment you are looking for, then this movie has it all. The songs are catchy. A lavish production, I must add.

However, the message of the movie is not universal. It emphasizes on the idea of karma. That is, if you do good, you will get good. And if you do evil, you will get evil. The fruit of good deeds is good, while the fruit of evil is evil. 

In real life, this is not always true. It is well-known that most people do not get justice in this world. While it is true that some evil people do meet with an evil end, there are many who escape. And then, there are many people who do good, and yet in return they meet with a sorry end.

If you don't care about the message, and all you want is an escape from worldly reality, this movie is an entertainer alright.

Sentiment: positive
I got the DVD from the library in the expectation of getting a good idea of how things go on in the background at a major opera production. I have to say, I was very disappointed. The subject had so much potential. The sets in a Wagnerian production must, of necessity, be elaborate and impressive and the story behind their creation and use could have been an excellent educational experience. Instead, what we get it a hodgepodge of clips of people moving around big items of scenery, vaguely help together with a commentary which failed to hold my attention. I found myself listening primarily to the background clips of music from operas. I was impressed by the sheer enormity of the effort required to put on such a production - that did come across fairly well and next time I am at the opera I am sure I will remember that part if this video - but was left feeling somewhat cheated by the lack of detailed commentary and explanation.

Sentiment: negative
This low budget crocodile movie really delivers the goods. The fact that it was inspired by true events would mean little if you wound up with a fake looking crocodile, bad C.G.I., or an obvious studio setting. Fortunately none of the above are involved with this terrific, very realistic film. The crocodile is real, there is no C.G.I., and the on location filming takes place in an actual Australian swamp. The actors were obviously inspired to create as much realism as possible in their performances, and they succeed. You can place yourself in their predicament, which is testament to how realistically "Black Water" translates as entertainment. Highly recommended. - MERK

Sentiment: positive
This movie was amusing at times, hell sometimes it was even downright funny.

The underlying message I got from the film though, was that women are responsible for all of the troubles of man. Every time a woman is depicted in the film, she is being lazy, being slutty or lambasting some poor guy for no apparent reason. I don't think the message involved is good for women or gay men.

But, it is a comedy, and a piece of art, so it is simply someones point of view. Even if I don't agree with it, they are still entitled to it.

An amusing film, but some of the comments others have made are just plain stupid. Best film ever my foot.

Sentiment: negative
And so it started with "Shreik" a send up of horror films, then we had Scary Movie, a genuinely good attempt at a new kind of genre, the illustrious send up. however....now we have: Scary Movie* Scary Movie 2 Scary Movie 3 Scary Movie 4* Date Movie Meet The Spartans Not Another Team movie* plus many more (genuinely funny movies marked with *)

and.....Super hero movie.... it seems the people that make these movies cannot yet grasp what makes the send-ups funny. using the rip-offs from other movies in a funny way is all well and good if done properly, but not many producers seem to know how to do that. Scary movie(1) did it well, the following sequels were then horrendous as the tried to over play the franchise, but it was redeemed by Scary Movie 4. Not another teen movie was good because it used the spoofs well...and to its credit i am sick of teen movies. however, this movie plays like a bad version of all of these. it relies on slap stick the would make even the 3 stooges cringe, violating the image of Stephen hawking, and then when people begin to get bored (and the producers knew when this would be) we are treated to Pamela Anderson in a skin tight suit. to conclude, spoofs should be about making a homage-like mock-up of an original movie with an original storyline, not plastering random take offs of legitimate film onto the storyline of a real film. 

...i shudder at the thought of "SCI-FI MOVIE" and get my seppuku knife ready

Sentiment: negative
Now I don't hate cheap movies. I just don't see why you should waste any money for a movie you could shoot with your dad's camcorder. If I rent a movie, I want it to be a MOVIE, not a bunch of people thinking it would be a good idea to waste some MiniDV - Tapes.

Maybe I hate this one so much because the guy in the video store said it was great, and it wasn't. Maybe I hate it because it's cheap, has the dumbest plot EVER, the most unrealistic characters EVER and the really, really, really WORST SHOWDOWN in the history of films EVER. Even Tom Savini can't save this.

Seriously, this one is a complete waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
this film sucks a big one. so many holes in the plot. if the devil is invincible, why does he require the protection of arnies bodyguards? I couldn't fathom why arnie didn't turn up for work for several days and then suddenly appears, takes their entire armoury and disappears again!! Nice work if you can get it. It's sad that the last 1/2 hour has to result in the standard arnie 'uzi 9mm' finale. Arnies interpretation of a depressed cop is to bow his head and sniff. i thought he had a bad cold for most of the film. Dreadfully scripted, Arnie is called 'buddy', 'dude' etc for 95% of the film and then suddenly we hear him being called by his real name of Jericho Cane (where do they get these names from??). The ending is so twee you'd better get the barf bag ready. Shame that Gladiator pulled off the same ending with 100% more class.



Sentiment: negative
This is what Disney Channel shows to kids who are dumber than posts. It suits them well. It's not funny, the acting is the worst I've seen in many years, there are more stereotypes than there are actors, and everything about this show makes you groan and roll your eyes. Wanna know why? Not only is this show a waste of airtime, the lead "actress" Selena Gomez looks like a pig. Jake T. Austin's character needs some Ritalin. David Henrie's character needs to visit a strip club and get wasted. Also, the writer of the show is inconsistent. In one episode, the security guard is called "sir" by one character and referred to as a woman by all else. 

Hello? It's called proofreading and editing. Do it sometime, Disney. 

Has anyone seen the promo for the new "four part bloodsucking saga"? Disney wanted their own version of the Twilight vs. Harry Potter thing. Except a million times lamer. The Wizards of Waverly Place Movie?? Think about it for a minute. Family goes away on vacation and 16 year old daughter wants independence from parents. SAME PLOT from The Proud Family Movie etc...

What's worse is all the Emmies and ALMA'S it got. And most of the audience are some-what age's 4-13 (And no life teenagers). how many more years? before selena gomez is showing her tits?

and Disney shows are all crap..hack writers..hack shows..destroying the minds and wallets of today's youth..

Sentiment: negative
The only remarkable fact is the participation of Klaus Kinski who plays a priest. Don't ask me why he does it! A bad, bad movie overall.



Sentiment: negative
Boy what a dud this mess was.But it only lasts an hour and I only paid a buck for it so I'll live....unlike the entire cast of this 1933 clunker who are all dust by now.

So anyway a small village starts having bodies turning up that have been drained of all their blood.The local yokels start talking about vampires ,of course,and a little more loudly after each body is found.The town sheriff or constable or whatever he is,played by awesome actor Melvyn Douglas,tries to tell them otherwise.When he mentions the fact that the dead have one large hole on each side of the neck,instead of two holes close together, the locals simply then say it's a giant vampire bat.The constable insists that vampires do not exist and it must be a human culprit doing the killings.

But Melvyn doesn't seem too bothered either way.He spends most of his time trying to get into the pantaloons of his sweetie,played by Faye Wray.Also in this mix is the town simpleton,played by Dwight Frye,who always seemed to have played the same role in every movie he did.He further freaks out the townspeople by catching bats and drinking his own blood.Lionel Atwill plays the town doctor who seemingly is trying to help the constable solve the crimes.And boy does he ever stink as an actor.Atwill is as close to cardboard in this role as he could get.And Lionel Barrymore is also in this thing....lots of big names to be such a pile of guano.

Other than the terrible mis-title this movie has,the alternate name,"The Blood Sucker" is much better,this movie is also dull and plodding and just silly.

For me the high point of the movie is watching Frye,he nails the freaky town weirdo but other than him this movie didn't offer much.And then when you find out the reason for the strange deaths and see the special effect thing that required all this blood you'll really be let down.

Bela Lugosi did a lot of awful pictures but at least he was fun and interesting to watch.Think of this movie as a really bad Lugosi clunker WITHOUT Lugosi and you'll get a feel for how miserably bad this mess was.

If you can't make a good 1930's horror film at least put Lugosi in it.

Sentiment: negative
Nurse Betty has that odd but winning combination of a repellent, unease-inducing plot with extraordinary characters. In the same way I loathed Fargo on first viewing, then realized I was still thinking about it days later and enjoying it somehow, I liked Nurse Betty a lot more the day after I saw it. Hard to understand, harder to explain. As others have said, it's quite forced in many ways, but that seems to be part of what makes it so striking.

Fair job by Greg Kinnear, great work from Morgan Freeman (although I worry that he's being stereotyped as the principled villain). Chris Rock was good but not a standout. Rene Z. is so natural it's unnerving -- i.e., unnerving to be "natural" playing someone not well in the head. Also liked the sort of "abrasive sparkle" performance from Allison Janney in a small part.

Don't go expecting as much of a "road movie" as you might assume from some synopses. (There is "road," but it's only barely relevant.) Rated 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
I loved this movie. It was so well done! Great acting and drama and historically accurate. I love Romy Schneider movies. This one rocks, not as great as Sissi but still rocks! 

And Scorpiolina,she commented and said french dubbing. Well this is originally a German movie not french. So yea. Second of all there was a plot, maybe your not familiar with history. Oh and her mother played the part of her governess, not her teacher. And the storyline was actually not Cinderella but Queen Victoria, maybe u missed that detail.

But anyway.... yea the history in this movie is great, I love historical movies and Queen Victoria is very fascinating! I love all the historical stuff. Like that guy that was trying to manipulate her mom. And when she ran away and met her future husband and he showed her the "new type of dance" waltzing. When waltzing was new it was considered kinda scandalous because the couples dance so close. Yea her governess was like oh my god!

And also the clothes, I love the clothes. The styles are great, hoop skirts are awesome. And of course Romy always looks very pretty.

Sentiment: positive
One can always tell if I'm enjoying a movie by the number of times I cross my legs, switch positions, make slight rustling noises, etc., etc. The lesser = the better. I moved so many times throughout this movie that I succeeded in knocking over my friends giant tub of popcorn and getting a huge thigh-strengthening workout.

Sobieski, a young actress who at some points in "A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries" gave some promise for her thespian talents, played poorly in a poorly-written part. Depressing fact number one. Number two: Chris Klein was in it. Depressing fact number three: Chris Klein had lines. Number four: Chris Klein played a valedictorian. Woah. Dummies from rich families unite! Even worse, he actually tries to act, but only succeeds in sounding like a mentally disabled overactor in an increasingly sappy independent version of a Cecille B. DeMille film. Go back to humping your American Pies.

This movie was terrible in almost every sense, save Josh Hartnett's mildly endearing performance as LeeLee's stiffed boyfriend Jasper. Luckily, he refrains from trying to have too many "moments," unlike all the other characters. Of course, this is why he's much better than the rest and he actually shows some mettle here. If you like Josh or are thinking of casting a kid who knows a few things, he's your man. 

Hartnett is a sharp actor, but the rest need no further lambasting.

2 out of 10 (for poor Hartnett in this terrible film)



Sentiment: negative
I once used Wesley Snipes' name as a clue to go ahead and watch a new, untried film in which he appears. So now, for the first time, my Snipes-Method of film recommendation has failed. Utterly. I should first have come here to see these reviews.

Snipes ought to be ashamed to allow his otherwise earnest efforts to be so wasted in "The Contractor".

One of my worst flick fears has come to bitter fruition. I feared that the shaky, blurry, pseudo-documentary, "unconsidered" directing and editing style (first brought to my attention by the Paul Greengrass-directed "Bloody Sunday") might propagate to other films. Greengass' sickening style was then brought to nauseatingly new heights in the last two of the Bourne trilogy films. My fear had come to pass. In my opinion, these films are made really bad by these motion-sickness-inducing methods, which mistake blurry swipes for "action-enhancement". But the "Bourne Franchise," as Greengrass so loving calls his cash cow, apparently convinced others in Hollywood to go unprofessional in the quest for fast, big bucks.

Read my lips, you Hollywood types. Action needs to be clearly photographed and presented, not merely hinted at by poor, lazy cinematographic techniques.

And "The Contractor" goes so far as to emulate "The Bourne Ultimatum" in inanely-repeated sound bites, in hopes their juvenile (apparently-evaluated) audiences can't sense them. For example, if I hear a cop radio crackling "Yankee-Romeo" one more time, I'll just scream. The chances are good I won't hear it again: I certainly won't ever view "The Contractor" again.

I recommend to those of you who have yet to see "The Contractor": just be content with the tranquility this lack affords to your life.

2 out of 10; I am tempted to lower that to a 1.

Sentiment: negative
This telecast of the classic musical "Sweeney Todd" does not do the production justice, but is still quite enthralling.

Firstly, the most enjoyable aspect of this version is the production design, from the wheeling multi-set to the startling trapdoor. Then, the staging is excellent, right down to the slashing.

The main failing here is in the performances people give. Oh, they're believable, all right-- but it is quite frustrating when nobody seems to be hitting their cues on time in a song as fast-paced as, say, "Kiss Me." In fact, the actress playing Johanna is not only off-tempo to a dismal degree, but also slightly off-key. And Angela Lansbury's slightly overdone cockney accent is a bit irritating. One more thing, too-- what, exactly, is so bad about Judge Turpin's performance of "Johanna" that it is banned from the American theatre, but not the cannibal anthem "A Little Priest"?

Otherwise, this is an excellent production. It's a thrill to watch people do what they love-- and I'm not even peripherally talking about "meat pies with a twist".

Sentiment: positive
This existential thriller, in Portuguese with English subtitles, is a modern version of the American filmes noires of the 40s, complete with a surprise twist at the end. It is riveting from beginning to end. My only criticism is its poor production values. The film looks cheaply made, and it probably was, so the black and white cinematography is vastly inferior to that of Godard in Vivre Sa Vie, to cite another film noir of more than 30 years earlier. Most maddening of all, the subtitles are often hard to read. When will filmmakers learn and provide yellow subtitles so that they can be read against a white background. I'd give this an 8 overall, although with better production values it could have been higher.

Sentiment: positive
Trying to catch a serial killer, did they ever think of tracking the license plate number of the black van or fingerprint the video tapes he sent? Oh brother the plot of this movie was so full of holes it was pathetic. Now I know why there are bad movies in the world. This one however was one of the worst.

Sentiment: negative
This couldn't have been better. The strong restraints on Mike Sullivan's expressions couldn't have been portrayed in any other way. Tom Hanks delivers the best performance of his career. Young Tyler Hoechlin drives an emotional wheel; playing the basis character for the story. And veteran Paul Newman gives one of his best character performances in a long time.

This film is based on a bold graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. This is a father/son story which basically employs the two candidates solely unfit for the roles. Mike Sullivan had no father as a child, so John Rooney took him in. Although a generous man, Mr. Rooney involved himself in organized crime. Therefore, the debt of Sullivan was only to be paid off in involving himself in the business. Now, Sullivan has a wife and two children and is trying to keep his children safe, but at the same time pay back his boss. The events to follow, will test Sullivan's loyalty and embrace his family's fate.

With a great adaptation by David Self, the dialogue comes out seldomly, but yet very virtuous. The story unfolds in a beautiful 1930's setting (Brilliant Art Direction by Richard L. Johnson & Nancy Haigh) covered with a dark rainy (snow on the ground) exterior. Driving the story, is Thomas Newman's wonderful Irish score, settling in only when necessary.

But the most important technical element in the film is Conrad L. Hall's beautiful photography. This is some of the best cinematography I've seen; and I watch a lot of films. The scene when Mike and Michael are in the car, entering Chicago is quite impressive. The shot starts at the front of the car, revealing Mike(Hanks) through the windshield. It subsequently dollys around to the side of the car, to see Michael(Hoechlin) awakening and peering out his side window. As it continues, it trucks sideways and dollys back, completely around the car and reveals a gorgeous scenic 1930's Chicago.

With a great cast and crew, the principle man creates a brazenly amazing film. I'm talking about Sam Mendes, who made his feature film debut in 1999 with American Beauty. (won him various awards) Before American Beauty, Mendes worked as a play director for the British Theater, but decided that he wanted to move on saying that there was nothing new for him in theater. With only two films, Sam Mendes has marked himself in my book as one of the great directors (In a list of about twenty-five).

The film illuminates a brazen genre that has its hits and misses and expresses the true theme brilliantly. The photography, acting and story is phenominal. I'm still waiting for Scorcesee's Gangs of New York, but for now, I'm fully confident in saying that this is the "Best Film of the Year". Considering it's competition (Signs, Insomnia, Minority Report) thats a strong statement.

Sentiment: positive
I went to see this thinking it would be a great comedy and a comeback for Robin Williams, but when I saw it I realized I had bee lied to by advertisers as this is more drama than comedy, although it has a few really good laughs in it. It felt like I was watching two movies. One was a funny romp with Robin Williams that should have been the whole basin for the movie anyway, but you also get a techno thriller movie with political angst in the middle. I really don't know how to classify this film. But I can tell you it was good and I did laugh, not as much as I had hoped, but at least Williams is back in the right direction. See this but know before going it is not all comedy and is a little intense.

Sentiment: positive
Rich ditzy Joan Winfield (a woefully miscast Bette Davis) is engaged to be married to stupid egotistical Allen Brice (Jack Carson looking lost). Her father (Eugene Palette) is determined to stop the marriage and has her kidnapped by pilot Steve Collins (James Cagney. Seriously). They crash land in the desert and hate each other but (sigh) start falling in love.

This seems to be getting a high rating from reviewers here only because Cagney and Davis are in it. They were both brilliant actors but they were known for dramas NOT comedy and this movie shows why! The script is just horrible--there's not one genuine laugh in the entire movie. The running joke in this has Cagney and Davis falling rump first in a cactus (this is done THREE TIMES!). Only their considerable talents save them from being completely humiliated. As it is they both do their best with the lousy material. Cagney tries his best with his lines and Davis screeches every line full force but it doesn't work. Carson has this "what the hell" look on his face throughout the entire movie (probably because his characters emotions change in seconds). Only Palette with his distinctive voice and over the top readings manges to elicit a few smiles. But, all in all, this was dull and laughless--a real chore to sit through. This gets two stars only for Cagney and Davis' acting and some beautiful cinematography but really--it's not worth seeing. Cagney and Davis hated this film in later years and you can see why.

Sentiment: negative
...but other than that, there's almost no redeeming social value to this sequel to the original Poseidon Adventure. Where the heck are all the people from the original, including the rescue crew? Michael Caine undergoes his most humiliating performance to date (although he later trumps himself with Jaws 4 down the road). Slim Pickens is just embarrassing as a stereotyped Texas, and generally you just have to wonder, "Why did they bother?" Irwin Allen's last stab at cashing in on the disaster craze, I guess.

Sentiment: negative
Henry Thomas showed a restraint, even when the third act turned into horrible hollywood resolution that could've killed this movie, that kept the dignity of a redemption story and as for pure creepiness-sniffing babies?

Sentiment: positive
This film offers you a fascinating trip through one of the most exiting cities of today - Istanbul - and its musicians. Do not expect a compilation of Turkish folklore or anything like that. Alexander Hacke, a German musician and member of the cult band "Einstürzende Neubauten" travels to Istanbul to get to know the music scene. His sparse voice overs of what he experiences are a guiding line through the film. But mainly German-Turkish director Faith Akin lets various artists from Istanbul do the talking - and of course their music. 

You meet a variety of personalities, big stars and street musicians, young and old, people playing many different musical styles. But this movie does not only introduce you to the sound of Istanbul. It also draws a compelling picture of Istanbul today and how Turkey has forged ahead in the last decade. The film characterises its protagonists with subtle humour, but never without respect. All of them share a passion for music and the belief in its power. 

Akin again shows his talent to portray diversity lightheartedly when he brings you close to completely different musical scenes. After his award winning feature film "Gegen die Wand" (Head on) Faith Akin proves with "Crossing the Bridge" that he is equally able to touch, entertain and guide his audience in a documentary. If you have never been in Istanbul, you will want to go there after having seen the film.

Sentiment: positive
**MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**

The titular topless heroine rescues another beautiful babe and her father (an eccentric professor whose stock pith helmet is broken in one shot and whole in the next) from a moth-eaten, dime-store mummy and nasty Nazis out to--what else?--build a Fourth Reich. Misty's costume, like those of some other wimmen, gets skimpier as the movie rolls on. The last portion of the movie is devoted to protracted lesbian action; this footage actually gets real boring, real fast, which says more about the critters behind the camera than the curvaceous creatures in front of it. MISTY gets its nominal plot out of the way first and fast, then gives undivided attention to nudity and soft-core sex. This makes MUMMY RAIDER a throwback to movies made in the 1960s by guys like Stan Borden, David F. Friedman and Harry Novak. Just think: if this wonder-work had been cranked out four decades ago, it would have played for years on 42nd Street along with WHAM BAM THANK YOU SPACEMAN and KISS ME QUICK. As it is, MISTY MUNDAE MUMMY RAIDER went straight to home video. Grab yours, quick, before it goes out of print.

Sentiment: negative
Kidman and Law lack the chemistry to make this sloppily directed, poorly written romance/melodrama work on any level other than grandiosity. Kidman pouts and

pines wistfully for her absent lover Law. She's just met him when he's whisked off to do battle for the South in the Civil War, and they've only exchanged about 5 sentences and one kiss, yet they're totally smitten. Law's main direction throughout seems to be `Look vacant and shell-shocked, but sensitive.' Rene Zellweger is about the only spark in this dreary script, but she plays it way too broad and over the top, like she was starring in `Annie Get Your Gun.' Yee-hah boy howdy! Something about her character felt more like it belonged in a Monty Python sketch - the one from `Holy Grail' where the peasants spend all their time wallowing in muck making mud pies for no reason. Kidman is a smart enough actress to stay out of her way whenever she can. Their scenes together are like a comic book hidden inside a Victorian Era novel.

Whenever the action bogs down into total tedium, which is frequently, all the writers do is shout `Cue the Simon Legree-type Villain!' and Teague (Ray Winstone) comes galloping out of nowhere to do his unspeakably dastardly acts, like kill and torture innocent God-fearing townspeople in the name of loyalty to a fast-fading

Confederacy. All other times, he's missing in action, which is preposterous even in this cornball script. There is a plethora of other talented actors who give credible performances in small roles. These are the characters Law meets as he does his Johnny Appleseed trek from the front lines, where he has deserted, to the hopefully loving embrace of Kidman back in Cold Mountain. Ultimately though, none of these characters matter. Law has no time for them or their lives. Each of these little mini-movies has the same tired theme: war is gol-durn heck, and turns otherwise decent Christian folk into rabid animals.

And the script is far too predictable, too heavy-handed. Moreover, the pacing of the story is dreadfully slow. You spend the entire movie waiting for Romeo and Juliet's inevitable reunion, with Kidman wringing her hands and sighing, Law overcoming incredible odds and dodging bullets. And when it finally comes you just don't care anymore. You'll be looking at your watch wondering how much more of this clap you have to endure.

I give it one star out of five for the battle scenes. There is a potent anti-war message here. The incredible lack of concern for the loss of life by the Generals on both sides of the conflict is powerful stuff. But it's only about 15 minutes of this 150-minute dog.

Sentiment: negative
This would be a watchable Hollywood mediocre if it had a good editing. It relies on the typical American thriller plot - "who is going to outsmart everyone". Acting is below average, but with shining appearance of the detective who is the best actor in the film and he is mostly responsible if the tension in the film rises. Film was completely suffocated by blank video and sound shots and most of it looks like raw film material. All in all, if you don't mind watching a movie that looks like a student film project, this is a film to watch. I guess that would be enough to say on this film, everything else could really spoil the tension that is probably low enough.

Sentiment: negative
Takashi Shimizu had a great opportunity with a remake of his original film Ju-On The Grudge. While I haven't seen that film, I would have to wager that there's more imagination and originality (or some rip-off originality, in other words skill with known tropes of the Japanese ghost movie) than in his own directed remake. Maybe the script was written to somehow have some kind of warped appeal, or I would guess accessibility, for an American audience. What starts off with some potential - the hint of something very screwed up going on with Bill Pullman's sudden movement - just goes into a total jumble. And as a horror movie? Gimme a break.

Tension could have been built on the situation - a nurse going to take care of a disturbed woman in a house that is haunted - but he undercuts everything he wants to get his audience to feel. Scares? How's about some music timed just so you know when exactly to expect something. A black cat? Yeah, why not just make the ghost-boy thing sound like a cat for creepiness which, in effect, is only creepy if you want cats. Plot? Why not just shuffle between past and present without any semblance of an actual flow of how a story could be told (meaning, while the flashbacks are inserted and are meant to be organic with the story overall, they aren't), or for that matter have us care about ANYONE in the cast.

By the time the characters, or those that are there for exposition, get around to telling us what is going on or whatever, there's little point to care. The film-making is shoddy (i.e. the 180 degree rule is broken many times over and not in a forgivable or intriguing way), and the performances are wooden even when looking frightened or shocked (Gellar especially is disappointing, but Pullman, who shows up later after his first scene, is sorely miscast). Even when Shimizu tries for some average old "Boo" scares, like when the woman is in the office building and chased by the Grudge ghost, it's still silly. Just watch when she's going on that elevator and the ghost is in the background of shots. Either you'll go with it, and if so more power to you, or you'll laugh hysterically at the results. Count me in the latter.

I'm not totally sure where this project went wrong - was it Shimizu having to retool it for the studios, or him not giving enough leeway with his revamp of his vision? Or maybe Raimi had some say in it and made things more confusing and/or dull than they would be with someone else. The Grudge gives us a lot of information that doesn't make sense or at the least give us some horror-fodder to chew on. It's cineplex trash of a sad order.

Sentiment: negative
Cracking good yarn with all the actors giving great value. Michael Curtiz at his best. Lots of nice twists and turns and probably the best of the Philo Vance series. William Powell looks wonderfully relaxed and at his debonair best. A forerunner to the Thin Man series. Recommend to everyone. Did you figure it all out?

Sentiment: positive
This movie is a loose collection of unintelligible analogies and ill conceived plot devices.

Movie history: The director of this film was a pervert who drove around town filming random women. When his wife discovered the film reels, he was forced to quickly contrive a story. He claimed he was making a movie called "The brain that wouldn't die." Eventually, his wife demanded that he show her his "so called movie." That night he quickly filmed some extra scenes with a friend and "The Brain that wouldn't Die" was born.

I hate this movie! Plot Synopsis: The main character's fiancé is killed in a horrible car accident(that he caused by ignoring the clearly posted road signs). He grabs her head from the wreckage and reanimates it. After reanimating the head, he goes and picks up a bunch of hookers. That is pretty much what happens for the rest of the movie. At the end, he fights and is killed by a monster that lives in the closet. The monster appears with little to no explanation. However, the monster saves a hooker and I assume that they live happily ever after.

Side notes: The end credit screen claims that the movie is called "The Head that wouldn't Die".

I hate this movie!

Sentiment: negative
This movie was very, very strange and very, very funny. All of the actors are quite real and very odd. The overall "look" of the film was different, too, sort of dreamy and bleached-out, which only added to the spacey, fumbling, weird vibe of the whole thing.

It's not for everyone, I mean, it's not what you would call "mainstream" but that is what I liked about it. It's unlike anything I have ever seen before . . . unpredictable, with a weird rhythm and punch lines in the strangest places. The kids are so heartbreakingly goofy (and pimply) that you can't help but feel for them. In other words, these are far from "hollywoodized" versions of teenagers.

All of, which for me, makes it a good thing.

Sentiment: positive
In the movie, "The Falcon and the Snowman", when they were showing Christopher Boyce around the complex, the satellite in the background was the actual Ryholite satellite that is now in space. TRW allowed interior shots. TRW also allowed both interior and exterior shots for one of the original Star Trek TV series. (The episode is the one where Spock goes blind when a string of satellite lights are activated to kill the aliens). Christopher escaped jail (Lompock) and was featured on America's Most Wanted. He was drinking in a bar when the show aired. He said, "Hey, that's me". Needless to say, he was captured and transfered to a maximum security jail.

Sentiment: positive
It may have been inevitable that with the onslaught of "slasher" movies in the early 1980's, that a few good ones might slip through the cracks. This is a great "rare" film from Jeff Lieberman, who insured his cult status with his memorable 1970's films "Squirm" and "Blue Sunshine".

Five young people head into the Oregon mountains (this movie was actually shot on location) to do some camping and check out the deed to some land that one of them has acquired. Before long, they will predictably be terrorized by a bulky killer with an incredibly creepy wheezing laugh.

"Just Before Dawn" is noticeably more ambitious, "arty", and intelligent than some slasher films. Lieberman actually fleshes out the characters - well, two of them, anyway - as much as a 90-minute-long film will allow him. The film has genuine moments of suspense and tension, and actually refrains from graphic gore, save for one killing right at the beginning.

There is an above-average cast here, including Oscar winner George Kennedy, as a forest ranger who's understandably gone a little flaky from having been alone in the wilderness for too long. Jack Lemmon's son Chris, future Brian De Palma regular Gregg Henry, blonde lead Deborah Benson (it's too bad she hasn't become a more well-known performer, judging by her work here), Ralph Seymour ("Ghoulies"), Mike Kellin ("Sleepaway Camp"), and Jamie Rose ("Chopper Chicks in Zombietown") round out the cast.

Some of the shots are interesting, and the early music score by Brad Feidel (now best known for his "Terminator" theme) is haunting and atmospheric.

This is worth catching for the important plot twist at about the one hour mark, although a moment at about 75 minutes in involving the heroine and a tree and the killer is almost comical; it may actually remind a viewer of a cartoon! One of the most clever touches is the final dispatching of the killer, which I'd never seen before in a horror film and probably won't see again.

I didn't give it 10 out of 10 because I can't honestly that I was that frightened. Still, it's an interesting slasher that is worthy of re-discovery.

"That deed don't mean nothing, son. Those mountains can't read."

9/10

Sentiment: positive
Feeding The Masses was just another movie trying to make a little money off of the zombie craze that is going around, mostly due to the popularity of movies such as Land Of The Dead and the Resident Evil series.

It starts at a television station, which is guarded by the military, and are reporting that The Lazarus Virus (zombies) are close to containment and the city will soon be free to do their business again. The problem is, this is totally false. Zombies are running rampantly and only a small minority of people are aware. Among them are Torch (William Garberina), the camera man, Sherry (Rachael Morris), the lead anchor woman (who for some reason is listed as playing Shelly on this website) and Roger (Patrick Cohen), their military escort. Torch and Sherry are against lying to the people but the station is being run by secret service (or some other government agency) and they are heavily censored.

This movie gives itself a pat on the back on the box-cover saying "We hold FEEDING THE MASSES on a higher level than any o the three 'of the Dead' films by George A. Rombero." The source of that quote has lost ALL credibility with me.

Let me just say that this movie is BAD. I don't mean bad like I was expecting more (I obviously was, though) but I mean bad in that I could not find any redeeming qualities in the film, whatsoever. The acting in all parts are either over done or too wooden. Did anybody remember their lines or are they reading off of cue cards? I can't even think of what the best part of the movie was or the best actor/actress. There really was not one. If I had to give a nod to someone, I would say Roger, the military escort was probably the most interesting character but that is really not saying much.

I would have to recommend to pass on this movie, despite the box-cover looking pretty good (It's what originally drew me to the movie). 3/10

Sentiment: negative
Stay away from this movie at all costs. I was suckered into watching this movie in a bet to see which one of us knew the t "worst movie of all time". Needless to say this one won hands down. It is long and drawn out, and has no purpose or plot from what I can gather. A movie about a killer kid raised from a fetus that was grown outside the womb just has no place inside your vcr. If you are extremely bored and have no life watch this movie. But if you rather keep your sanity, stay AWAY.

Sentiment: negative
Sure it is a new take on vampires. Who cares. I would rather the old take if it is entertaining. This was not entertaining. It was a dull story, poorly acted, with annoying cinematography. Save your money, don't even watch it on video.

Sentiment: negative