DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
It's not my fault. My girlfriend made me watch it.

There is nothing positive to say about this film. There has been for many years an idea that Madonna could act but she can't. There has been an idea for years that Guy Ritchie is a great director but he is only middling. An embarrassment all round. 



Sentiment: negative
Wow...as a big fan of Larry McMurtry western tales and the Lonesome Dove series in particular, I was s-o-o-o looking forward to Comanche Moon. What a tremendous letdown. Maybe my expectations were set too high because of the all around excellence of Lonesome Dove...the story, the characters, the cinematography, the music...it all worked.

Comanche Moon by comparison comes across like a bad Saturday Night Live skit. The characters are completely colorless, the dialogue is babble and the plot meanders mindlessly all over the place. It seems like the actors are all reading from TelePrompTers. I couldn't relate to any of the characters, good guys, bad guys, not even the incidental characters. David Midthunder's performance stands out in particular. It looks like it was plucked out of an eighth grade middle school performance. I'm sorry, I'd like to find something positive to say about Comanche Moon, but I just can't do it. There's nothing there.

Sentiment: negative
I have no idea who these others are but this movie is plain awful. They have to prop up Joe Pesci when he is a minor character. Bait and switch movie just like the studios did with Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey, etc. The DVD I watched states "this obscure gem revolves around JOe Pesci's MOB character who is a hothead that start a war" etc. etc. Joe plays the part of Joe, he does not even carry a gun, plays a whimpy character and gets SPOILER - (whacked). So much for the movie revolving around Pesci. The only halfway memorable scene was a bad attempt at comedy when they passed gas while waiting for a score. If you watch this movie after reading this, I warned you. Please stop and do not lose 87 minutes of your life.

Sentiment: negative
I found the DVD version of this movie at a rummage sale. The basic premise is an affair between a teacher/coach a student. The acting is weak and the plot razor thin.

This movie had all the depth and plot development of an adult film.

Sentiment: negative
Do not see this film. In most cases, such as that of Ju-On and The Grudge, the Japanese film are infinitely better than the American remake. However, this movie was terrible. The ghosts, much like a trick or treater dressed as a sheet ghost moan and wheeze in an attempt to be scary in the absence of good makeup or special effects and the acting is just horrible. The story itself is inconsistent and confusing, not everything is explained leaving the film to go from bad to worse. Do not waste your time with this movie, it's not worth it and I am sure that there are more entertaining things to do - like watching paint dry.

Sentiment: negative
Those French and those Germans sure have a long history of not liking each other. It is interesting to note that Kamerdaschaft or Comradeship in translation takes place in 1931. Only a few years later, Hitler would siege Germany and begin his plans to take over the world, France being a casualty of his ambitions. But these are times of sereneness compared to the future. A group of miners at the border try to cross over to France to get work. They are spurned back and later at a nightclub by their French neighbors. Then a disaster happens in the mines of the French and a well-crafted and written scene, a troupe of German miners decide to come to the rescue. A simple story is it not? Pabst was a poet of silent cinema and I am not sure if this is his first sound movie or not, but his poetry is there to be discovered. He isn't fussy but brings a rugged realism to the ordeal. Ther is even a flashback to a WWII event that beckons the point of this story. Supposedly based on a real event, the movie does the events proudly with directness and terseness. Smetimes, that's what a movie needs to be.

Sentiment: positive
Three part "horror" film with some guy in a boarded up house imploring the viewer not to go "out there" and (unfortunately) gives us three tales to prove why.

The first story involves a young couple in a car accident who meet up with two psychos. It leads up to two totally predictable twists. Still, it's quick (about 15 minutes), violent, well-acted and well-done. Predictable but enjoyable.

The second involves a man on the run after stealing a large amount of money. His car breaks down, he's attacked by a dog and stumbles into a nearby clinic. VERY obvious, badly done and extremely slow. Even at 30 minutes this is too long. Good acting though.

The third is just barely a horror story. It involves a beautiful, lonely woman looking for Mr. Right. It has beautiful set designs, a nice erotic feel and a nice sex scene. But (again) predictable and not even remotely scary.

It ends very stupidly.

All in all, the first one is worth watching, but that's it. Tune in for that one then turn it off.

Sentiment: negative
I found this film rather brilliant. Initially I wanted a "when animals attack" flick along the lines of "frankenfish" or even "rogue" but was delivered a truly horrific ordeal that was not devoid of humanity. Having been to the areas this was made (including the croc farm at the start of the movie, even sharing the same guide!) it added to the fear factor. Those crocs really are everywhere up there, though I don't think they had the "attitude" of this beastie. Yes there were some melodramatic moments but they contributed rather distract from the whole atmosphere. I genuinely cared for the characters and shuddered contemplating "what would I do?" in their boat. Not knowing where your enemy lurked or the sound of the croc chowing down at night was genuinely frightening. I would argue that this flick is one of the best horrors I have seen in years (coming close to the descent). I give it four alligator handbags.

Sentiment: positive
OK, people, honestly... this gotta be one of the worst movies about show biz that's ever been made, but I've been laughing myself silly (which may be why I enjoyed it). Basically, it's all about sex, sex and a way to get your own personal 15 minutes of fame. Did I mention that sex was a major issue in this movie? If you have a thing going for bizzzzare characters and easy entertainment, watch this movie when you get the chance (and don't have something better to do). 

***Attention spoilers!!!*** The funniest thing on the movie was the guy who asked Jerry whether he could marry his goat (!) on the show and flashing his wallet with his love's pictures. A triple A for bad taste and fun!

Sentiment: negative
This documentary was my first introduction to Peak Oil theory. A fascinating concept that has a lot of frightening consequences if it turns out to be correct. I had absolutely no idea that the effects of oil depletion would come so soon, it literally took my breath away. This movie will probably open your eyes as to how strongly the American way of life is dependent on the "abundance of cheap oil" - a term used throughout the film. A lot of the topics are plain common sense, and they don't go into a huge amount of depth about any of them. But you've probably never put all the pieces together like this movie does. The interviews with the authors and energy experts are all very interesting. I don't think this film is meant to scare people. It's merely meant to inform people about what to expect in the years ahead, and maybe to encourage you to think twice about commuting 100miles to work and leaving your lights on all day long.

After watching this film I was no longer able to look at the cars and buses zooming by quite the same. Great documentary, everyone should see it.

Sentiment: positive
The plot sounds vaguely interesting ... a scientist (Bateman) discovers how to transplant animal eyes and optic nerves into other animals, like humans. A young man (Monteith) is blinded saving a coworker at work - the scientist gets a call from a doctor that the young man is a good candidate to be the first human recipient. The recipient starts becoming more and wolf-like, but the effect is nothing more than "weird eyes" and running at night with dogs! (for the whole movie) The budget is too low, the dialogue too stilted (I laughed out loud at some of the ridiculous talk), and the acting too inept. Long portions of the movie are nothing more than dreamy looks, eerie music and interspersed clips of wolves in the wild. Way too long even at 90 minutes, boring, and devoid of ideas.

The military want to use the eye transplants to give wounded soldiers back their eyesight, and presumably want to militarize the technology. There's a silly subplot about a beautiful Indian girl (Korey) who thinks she can help, using Indian wisdom about the wolves. They make love while music heavy on drums and Indian chanting is heard - crazy, man! The love making takes place immediately after a gruesome murder - who edited this turkey?! A grouchy "medicine man" who spouts platitudes seems to do little, except for adding atmosphere.

Here's two ridiculous scenes. A worker at the research lab goes into the animal room to discover the monkeys have been let out of their cages. She gets scared, looks left at the monkeys, turns right, turns left, turns right, turns left .. this goes on for a while (who edited this??). RUN OUT OF THE DAMN LAB! It was so stupid I started laughing. Another ridiculous scene - our hero is at home, escapes out a window as the heavily armed military arrive - he leaves the window open, the military guys go to the open window, look out the window, they say "looks like he was here", and LEAVE! He went out the open window, guys!! Crazy.

Near the end of the movie, military guys are firing machine guns over and over at trees, when obviously nothing is there - easier to place the squibs I guess. They have 6 machine guns which have cut down trees, but decide to fight our hero with 1 knife!!! Shoot the guy!! Who wrote this trash?? There's a pointless confrontation at the end, and believe me I'm not spoiling anything for you - there's not enough plot to spoil.

I figure the whole thing was a tax write-off or a rush job to make use of unused budget money left over from some better movie.

Sentiment: negative
This movie had all the potential and makings of a great feel good, great love story...the cast is perfect, the visuals work, the original premise works, the characters work....but the story moves from one chess move to the next in a most predictable way...not one character in the movie has any depth or has any depth explained by the director. All we know about Catherine Zeta-Jones character is she is obsessed with her world....nobody is allowed in and nobody challenges her world...that much is obvious....but the remaining characters all have their own dimensions that are really never explored or exposed....Aaron Eckhart's character had so much more to offer to the story but wasn't allowed, Abigail Breslin's character is so easy to understand that her performance comes across somewhat predictable and phony....in the end everything reverts back to the forced turbulent world of Catherine Zeta-Jones which the audience never totally falls for....honestly, her turbulent world is not much more than a portrayal of a selfish, self obsessed, spoiled lady who most people would not have much time or sympathy for in the real world. The director needed to make her a hero and never does....in the end, it is Eckhart's character that ultimately wins because he wins.

Not a lousy movie, just a movie that could have been a lot better with more depth of personalities allowed in, explained and exposed.

Cheers

Sentiment: negative
If you are looking for an erotic masterpiece this isn't it. If you're looking for a comedic masterpiece this isn't it. If you're looking for something hardcore this isn't it.

That being said if you are looking for an example of the fine art of European erotic comedy from the the early - mid 1970's this is it.

I see many people complain about the quality please understand it was made in 1974. Yes the women do not conform to the modern ideal of attractiveness. They are by no means ugly women but they do not have the same looks which are idealized in our silicone culture. Yes the dubbing is not great but they are speaking German and anyone who speaks any German will realize it is pretty hard to dub over a word with 12 syllables.

If you have seen the DVD prior to the latest release it is marketed with 2 covers of 80's and recently 90's adult stars. The film is an R film so those complaining about hardcore should have realized this, the film is edited from the original BUT it was also edited prior to its run in the drive-ins in the late 1970s.

I first saw this film as a young man and judging by some comments there are many in the same boat who caught a glimpse on Cinemax. Many people become upset when later in life it doesn't live up to their previous memories. It's understandable considering the raunch and nudity packed into todays erotica.

If you compare 2069 to a modern soft-core erotic comedy you may be disappointed. The film while outlandish is actually quite fluid and the jokes while generally innuendos and double meanings still hold up and can still garner a chuckle. If you compare it to a hardcore movie you will be further disappointed, compared to today you see very little.

It is still one of the best examples along with Bottoms Up and The Other Cinderella of European Erotic/Comedic Cinema of the 1970's.

Sentiment: positive
Annie Potts is the only highlight in this truly dull film. Mark Hamill plays a teenager who is really really really upset that someone stole the Corvette he and his classmates turned into a hotrod (quite possibly the ugliest looking car to be featured in a movie), and heads off to Las Vegas with Annie to track down the evil genius who has stolen his pride and joy.

I would have plucked out my eyes after watching this if it wasn't for the fun of watching Annie Potts in a very early role, and it's too bad for Hamill that he didn't take a few acting lessons from her. Danny Bonaduce also makes a goofy cameo.

Sentiment: negative
This is strictly for Pryor fans. Just because he was a great, funny guy doesn't mean this is more than a B-Movie. The script is awful, it just meanders around constantly ridiculing crime and prisoners of war. It balances between comedy and melodrama and keeps falling on its face doing justice to neither. 

First there are 30 minutes of rather unrealistic, uninspired Vietnam prisoner of war time  the guy is playing basketball at one point... How more can you pander to your audience?... That prison time is boring, unconvincing and already can easily put one to sleep. 

Back in the U.S. the guy for no real reason at all is considered a "war hero". Yet he is of course quickly forgotten by the public and seems to be stumbling into all kinds of wacky mishaps. Or are they really? We will soon find out. Yawn. There are annoying clichés: his sick mother, his little daughter he never meets, a high end whore falling in love with the hero etc. It is very odd how this movie constantly switches from tragedy to slapstick in one instant. Doesn't work at all. 

Overall this in fact is just a bad comedy and does a disservice to prisoners of war. Just because this guy was a great stand-up comedian, played in a few good movies and died of MS is no reason not to be annoyed by this silly, unconvincing, unfunny comedy. But if you like Richard Pryor you will probably be thrilled by him reading 3 hours of Dadaist poetry.

Sentiment: negative
I am still trying to determine whether the previous installment was worse than this one, or vice versa. Being that it is nearly fifteen years since I saw this film, the fact that I remember so little about it does not bode well. Perhaps it is simply because I only watched it once or twice, but I doubt it. If there was anything worth remembering about this film, you can rest assured I would remember it.

At the time this film was released, the franchise was still entering its dying phase, so a lot of media coverage was allotted to it. It's never a good sign when teenie pop magazines contain explanations of the plot basics. One such article had to explain that Freddy was left too weak to infest the dreams of grown humans, so he decides to go after Alice's unborn son. So far, so good, but this is the job of the writer or the director to explain to the audience. It should not be left to some unrelated publication.

Making use of the trivia given in part three about Freddy's conception, one could half expect scenes that would lift this joke out of the "horror for infants" category, but alas, that was not to be. It goes to show the sheer idiocy of the American ratings system that a piece of B'harni-esque garbage like this could get the same rating as a genuinely frightening piece like the original.

By this time, the franchise could not attract anyone with an active career. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, Lisa Wilcox was there to provide a quotient of competent acting. Or perhaps she just looks competent by comparison to the rest of the cast. Either way, given that her last role was in something called The All New Adventures of Chastity Blade, I doubt she really had anything else going for her. Even poor old Robert Englund has been in better productions than that in the past fifteen years.

Given that box office returns were in a steady decline, and not just for this franchise, at the time, one would have thought that the studios would realize neutering their films does not make them more saleable. In fact, this particular film, like its immediate predecessor, was so neutered that not only did it fail to attract a new audience, both succeeded in alienating the core audience that originally supported the franchise. Despite this, part five must be given some credit for not having the bright, luminescent feeling that made part four so insulting to look at.

I gave A Nightmare On Elm Street Part Five a one out of ten. By trying to appeal to everyone, or the MPAA's idea of everyone, it succeeds in appealing to noone. Like parts two and four, one could erase it from the continuity entirely, and nobody would notice the difference.

Sentiment: negative
This movie contains no humor for anyone who has lived with a family member who has a mental illness. So many scenes reminded me too graphically of my own life experiences. This movie was the man's version of "Mommy Dearest." It depicts both graphically and accurately the life many children of a mentally ill parent goes through. It also shows how easy it is for a psychiatrist to become corrupt and act like they are God. 

Someone told me it was funny. No way, I say! It is sick humor at best. 

The movie is so intense and depressing that my son and I had to leave the room. The best use for this movie is for people who don't understand mental illness or don't believe what we families actually do live through.

Sentiment: negative
Is Thursday an original film? Heck no, but it is a lot of fun! I just caught this buried on the movie channels one night and it was an enjoyable flick. I was expecting much but what I got was some interesting scenes (I really liked the first seen at the convenience store), some amusing stories as told by the characters and a little bit of action thrown in the mix as well. Some good performances from young actors, Paulina Porizkova was good and I was particularly impressed with Aaron Eckhart (who has gone on to impress me further in Yours Friends and Neighbours' and Erin Brokovich'). So if you want 90 minutes of easy going fun go ahead and check out Thursday'.

Sentiment: positive
Directed by Jim Wynorski (Chopping Mall, Return of the Swamp Thing), Cheerleader Massacre is the fourth installment in the Slumber Party Massacre series. Just think about it: it's the fourth chapter of a slasher series that no one really cares about! So how could this even be good? Well, it's not! But since when did slasher films have to be good? Cheerleader Massacre is entertaining, that's for sure. But in the entertainment field, we've seen better, that's for sure too! As you can see, I'm not sure about where I stand concerning this movie. Those who watch slashers only for nudity will be more than satisfied. This movie's all boobs, but unfortunately no blood, or not enough. I think I'm being generous with this movie because I had a good time watching it and I really enjoy watching slasher movies, even as bad as they sometimes are. If you want me to be sincere, The Slumber Party Massacre Part 1 is the best one and all the others are a waste of time, so I guess I have a lot of time to waste!! For more fun, watch Sleepaway Camp 2 and Cheerleader Camp.

Sentiment: negative
Well now, this was certainly a surprise episode. In this anthology science fiction series, with all of this Alien Beings, Extraordinary Occurrences and many Brushes with the Hereafter, this episode would certainly rate as unusual. Its seemingly insignificant settings apparently not imparting any morale at story's end. Or does it? Kicking off with the Silent Movie Form, no recorded dialog, but having Musical accompaniment. In this case it's on the sound track, not utilizing the Playing of Organ or Piano by an on sight Musician. This part of the episode, along with the ending section, also made liberal use o Title Cards, just like "the Old Time Movies." While these Titles are a bit exaggerated and overdone, they are made so intentionally and with an affection for rather than any contempt for The Silent Film.

Veteran Comedy Film Director, Norman Z. McLeod, was the man in the Chair for this half-hour installment. He had been the Director of many of the greatest comedies of all time, featuring people like the Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, Harold Lloyd and Danny Kaye. He was no stranger to to TV, as he had done a lot of work on Television Series.

It doesn't appear that he and Mr. Keaton had ever worked together before(as I cannot find any evidence of this)' but judging by the outcome of the film, they succeeded in doing so with flying colors! Anyone who directed Keaton was aware that Buster was also a fine comedy Director as well as a Comedy Player. He was just as comfortable behind the camera as he was in front of it. Their short partnership must have been a harmonious one, with 'give and take' about how to do things. It is apparent that many of the gags were Keaton's, resurrected from his own Silent Picture Days. For example, the gag of putting the pair of pants on with Rollo's(Stanley Adams assistance was done by Keaton and Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle in one of the Arbuckle 2 Reelers, THE GARAGE (1919). That was a clear example of his craft in a nutshell.

Buster knew that we film our world with a camera, rendering it a two dimensional image. This one fact is at the bottom of so many of gags. It is a Cardinal Rule for his film making.

The cast was small and once again just chock full-of veteran talent. Stanley Adams was Rollo and served as Mr. Keaton's straight man. Jesse White, the old 'Maytag Repair Man', ran the fix it shop that fixed the 'Time HJelmet'. Gil Lamb, serene veteran of RKO Short Comedy series, was the 1890's Cop. James Flavin, George E.Stone, Harry Fleer, Warren Parker, and Milton Parsons all rounded out this largely silent cast.

Without spilling the beans, let's just say that yes, there is probably a lesson to be learned here. If not the one already mentioned, "The Grass Always Looks Greener on the Other Side of the Fence!", then how about, "Be Careful in What You Ask For, Because You Just May Get It!"

Sentiment: positive
This trash version of `Romeo and Juliet' passes in Manhattan in the present days. Romeo (Will Keenan) is an a**hole and violent member of family Que, and Juliet (Jane Jensen) is a sexy (with beautiful legs and breasts) and bisexual girl of Capulet family. The scatological situations this romantic pair will face are very funny. Although being a cult movie (inclusive exhibited in Rio de Janeiro Festival), it is not recommended for all the audiences. If the viewer is fan of Peter Jackson's former movies (`Braindead', `Bad Taste'), `Toxic Avenger', `Body Melt' and other trash movie, he will certainly love this flick. Otherwise, he will hate it. Since I belong to the first group, my vote is eight.



Sentiment: positive
The film transported everyone back to October 20, 1944 where we seemed to be part of the great Philippine 'I Shall Return' landing scene It was on that Leyte shore where General MacArthur reaped his fame 

Above all, Gregory Peck triumphed in his portrayal of the great general It is the stride, the set of the shoulders, the intensity It's what both men have had in common: intensity, total absorption, devotion With MacArthur it was for the military With Peck it was for the challenge of acting An Academy Award winner for "To Kill a Mockinbird", an Oscar nominee for "Keys to the Kingdom", "The Yearling", "Gentleman's Agreement", and "Twelve O'Clock High"he has played everything from an apparently homicidal amnesiac to a crusading journalist; from a troubled gunfighter to an obsessed attorney; from biblical David to Captain Horatio Hornblower He has brought to them all his own unique insight, his character, his sincerity, warmth and love, and especially, his humor 

There is a scene where 'MacArthur' stands on deck with the 'President of the Philippines.' We can hear the dialogue: "General, I hope the water isn't too deep," says the 'President,' "because my people will find out I can't swim." Then come Peck's sonorous voice: "And my people are going to find that I can't walk on water!" 

As "MacArthur," Peck once again justified his reputation as a giant in the film industry Through him we felt MacArthur's emotions: we knew his anger, his happiness and we understood the relationship with his whole family

Sentiment: positive
My wife and I started to watch this movie with anticipation. It looked warm and touching. It started out well; but, soon became boring and frankly idiotic after a while. It got so bad that we turned it off The movie was poorly acted and honesty, we couldn't really understand or wanted to understand what exactly why or how the hell they could put up with this woman! You lost sympathy for her after she was rude and acting wackos singing and cleaning. I would have had her committed. And, of course, like most movies and T.V series made in Hollywood we have to throw it a token "gay" character! This movie was boring. I was expecting more from Diane Keaton!

Sentiment: negative
I am currently 22 years old, and remember seeing this movie in the theatres when it first came out. You heard me right, I was 5 years old, and yet I can still distinctly remember what I saw that afternoon so many years ago. Was it a mystical trip through the fantastic world of Mark Twain's creativity?... No, on the other hand, it was a quite creepy film about Mark Twain's dark, depressed, and in fact suicidal side. One scene that still bothers me was a particularly strange scene in which Mark Twain is playing the organ at his own funeral.

Would an adult enjoy this film? Well, this movie quite possibly features some interesting viewpoints that a person with a working knowledge of Mark Twain's writing might enjoy; but trust me on this, "Adventures" is NOT the film you want to use to introduce your young children to Mark Twain.

Sentiment: negative
OK...ths film (like Segal's last few films) once again goes beyond the "knock 'em down, kick 'em in the groin, shoot 'em in the face, get revenge against the bad guys for hurting my sister's niece's cousin" stuff Seagal was into for a while. Geepers, Steven started thinking, and using his bucks to make movies with actual ideas in them. SURE....there is plenty of action in this flick, but also some thought and heart. It's not an Oscar flick, but well worth the effort, unless the viewer is so into brain dead violence that it hurts to have to think for longer than a second. It's worth a rental..or two!!

Sentiment: positive
This movie is just plain dumb. Don't bother watching it; believe me, you're better off.

Long and short of the plot: a defense attorney represents a man who murdered his son and other children. In defending him, she comes across a wooden doll of Pinnochio. She takes the doll home. Pinnochio is possessed and begins to start killing people.

This movie moves very slowly only to have such a weak ending. The plot is very bad and the Dennis Michael Tenney's musical score is pitiful. The story, written by Kevin S. Tenney, is just pointless and evokes NO horror or fear. This is a far cry from his work on Night of the Demons and Witchboard, which are decent outings but nothing to write home about. His directing is OK, but with such a bad story no one could have made this movie any good.

In conclusion: 2 out of 10, perhaps the blandest, most boring movie I've seen all year.

Sentiment: negative
I rented this movie hoping that it would provide some good entertainment and some cool poker knowledge or stories. What I got was a documentary type look at an average guys life who happened to be really good at cards. Do I want to see the romance with his wife? NO Do I want to see about everything that went on in this guy's life except poker? NO. Well thats what you get with this film. The acting is good for such a low budget piece of crap. The film never tries to break the mold or do anything original. It simply sleep walks its way through the script. The ending is disappointing and never really looks deep into Ungar's mind. Instead it focuses on what was already obvious. He was a drugged out card player with an average life not unlike any other average joe in vegas. The movie focuses on the aspects of his life that were UN extraordinary rather than the Extraordinary. The poker scenes in the entire film add up to about 4 minutes of footage. Ungar's achievements of winning the WSOP 3 times seem life after thoughts. A 10 year old could do a better job directing this movie.. or maybe it was the script being a piece of crap from the beginning that doomed this joke of a movie.

If you want to see a film about gambling watch Rounders. It at least has style.

Sentiment: negative
I could not even bring myself to watch this movie to the end. I cannot comment on the story as I did not watch the whole film and the reason I couldn't watch it was because of the 'actors'. Firstly, for the most part they just looked stiff and I'm sure their scripts were in their hands just out of frame - but that's a minor issue. The main issue I have with the actors isn't really their fault... it's whoever cast this film! Come on, this movie came out in 2003... I thought that casting people in their late twenties to play teenagers went out of fashion with new wave?! I cannot watch a movie where one of the first lines, from a grown man older than myself, is "I'm 17!" How can anyone take that seriously????? Don't fall victim to this movie, go out for a walk for 90 minutes and you'll get far more than this movie could ever give.

Sentiment: negative
The story would never win awards, but that's not what it's about... the script was just entertaining and suspenseful enough to make room for the incredibly choreographed fight scenes. Who needs a story with fighting like that? Really, it's worth watching for that reason alone. IF you can handle the gore, of which there is a LOT... none of it done realistically enough to be tough to look at. I gave it a 7.

Sentiment: positive
In nineteen eighty two when it was announced that the Dismisal was going to be made , there was a storm of controversy. This was an event which still left open wounds in the hearts and minds of the Australian people. After some changes (listen out for the well timed telephones ringing to disguise names) the Dismissal went to air. It was nothing short of brilliant. The leads were perfect. Max Phipps as Gough Whitlam lead the way, closely followed by John Stanton as Malcolm Fraser and the evergreen John Mellion as Sir John Kerr. The time was created well, the feelings of the people were well done and the political elements were not two dimensionally made into melodrama as in so many American series. The Dismissal was a faithful re-creation of a time in Australia which some would rather forget and which we cannot forget. it did not take sides and it pointed out the mistakes and lies of both sides. It leaves one wanting to maintain the rage and change the constitution which still allows for this to all happen again. The Dismissal is now available on DVD in Australia. Watch it, learn from it and learn about our modern history.

Sentiment: positive
Man the ending of this film is so terribly unwatchable and dated that my entire film aesthetics class laughed like crazy. Now most of the rest of the film was okay. It had a few unintentionally funny scenes but had a few real good camera shots and editing. Yes Alderich is a great director who made FLight Of The Phoenix and Whatever Happened TO Baby Jane among others. The problem isn't with direction, acting or anything technical. The movie is just destroyed in the third act. Why? The murders, twists, turns and characters have all been revolving around NUCLEAR MATERIAL? What the heck was the writer smoking when he came up with that? The way it just comes out of nowhere may have been the biggest Deus Ex Machina in history. For all the complaints about Burton's Planet of the Apes, THe life of David Gale or Notorious I think THIS is the worst ending ever. What a let down.

Sentiment: negative
One of the most boring slashers ever.. If you can even call it that. I wouldn't watch this if it even ended up being some kind of porno movie, which it completely resembles. The fact that you're watching a small group of middle-aged people in the woods is really unbearable. They made these kinds of movies for teens, so who were they really aiming for when they made this sleep-fest? My favorite part of this movie is the cover art and it's the only reason I chose to seek out this movie, which happened to be part of a Suspense Classics 50 Movie Pack.. and after seeing the other movies in this 50 pack, you'll realize that it belongs nowhere else. So if you're in the mood for a decent slasher in the woods, I recommend Just Before Dawn and The Final Terror.

Sentiment: negative
Jeremy Northam struggles against a "Total Recall" clone script and disposable romantic by-play to bring life to a confused character. Lucy Liu graduates her acting from a wooden start to a workman-like finish. You can't fail to laugh when viewing her interviews on the DVD when she uses the term "Femme fatal" and "Romance". French film-noir actress she is not and they lack chemistry together.

This movie fails, not in the plot or the action sequences but in the lack of attention to detail in the films photography and ham-fisted portrayal of the world of technology surrounding the main protagonists. Little attempt is made to dress the scenery to represent any contiguous filmic landscape or period. Automobiles are very 1990's and the architecture barely modern with open plans that hint at a restricted budget rather than conscious set dressing techniques.

The technology is positively hilarious. Massive "2001: A Space Odyssey" mainframes fed by man-portable CD-ROM's with data collected for some unexplained reason, in spite of the proliferating communications network that even the most un-savvy technologist today would obviously be aware. There is an obvious lack of research done here and given the open-source nature of the cyber-community, research would have cost little more than a bulletin board and personal time.

DVD interviews also reveal the original movie name was "Company Man" but this likely ditched in order to cash in on Matrix hype. The "Cypher" title has only the slightest link with the movie. Terry Gilliam would have done wonders with this concept; and completely re-written the Decalogue.

This is Tele-movie quality and extremely disappointing for a movie length production. It might have made a good sub-plot for "Alias".

Sentiment: negative
I grew up in New York City and every afternoon ABC would show the 4:30 movie- Saratoga Trunk was one of the first movies I remember watching as a kid. I loved this movie and it has stayed with me for years. I recently watched it again and still thought it was great - maybe I am just a romantic - but I thought it was well done. I do not want to say this movie was good only because of the main actors - I really did not know who they were when I first saw this movie - I guess I just knew quality acting as a child. Both Bergman and Cooper were excellent. I especially loved seeing old New Orleans during the time period of this movie . If you ever get a chance to visit New Orleans - you should watch movies that show the city during that time period - when you get to see some of the old homes in the French Quarter(not just Bourbon Street) or uptown, you can truly imagine life as it was 100 years ago. 

I love old movies - this one to me is a good flick!!

Sentiment: positive
That's what me and my friends kept asking each other throughout this entire flick. We couldn't believe how stupid it was! I think somebody shot this on their camcorder at home and snuck it into the movie store and put it on the shelf as a joke to see if anybody would ever pick it up. Well, I guess the joke is on us.

I guess I should have come to this website first and read all of the reviews it has gotten, every single one says this movie is HORRIBLE, STUPID, and on and on. And boy are they right! Although it did provide some pretty good laughs (me and my friends were pretty drunk) because it is so stupid. We just can't believe somebody was dumb enough to make such a crappy movie! I swear this had to be made in the 70's before they had good technology for movies and stuff because every scene looks really crappy, but when I looked on here it said it was made in 2001? What? It sure doesn't look like a movie that would be made today, but I guess that's what you get when you use a camcorder and shoot home movies using strobe lights and really fake looking lasers, and use real life people from your home town instead of actors or even aspiring actors. BTW-some of those chicks (or were they drag queens, we couldn't tell!) were so fugly, even my drunk horny college buddies wouldn't touch them with a 50-foot pole.

So there's absolutely no appeal to this movie at all, bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad special effects, bad, bad, bad. Don't waste your time or money on this one, you'll be completely disappointed!

Sentiment: negative
If this had been done earlier in the Zatoichi series it could have been one of the best. It is good enough, as most of them are, but the plot and the characters seem too complicated for the series at this point. The situation is unusually intriguing: the farmers in the province have two champions, a benevolent boss (for once) and a philosopher-samurai who starts a sort of Grange; both run afoul of the usual local gangsters, who want the crops to fail because it increases their gambling revenues and their chances to snap up some land; their chief or powerful ally is a seeming puritan who is death on drinking and gambling but secretly indulges his own perverse appetites. (He also resembles Dracula, as the villains in the later Zatoichi movies tend increasingly to do.) These characters have enough meaning so that they deserved to be set against Zatoichi as he was drawn originally, but by now he has lost many of his nuances, and the changes in some of the characters, such as the good boss and the angry sister of a man Zatoichi has killed, need more time then the movie has to give, so that the story seems choppy, as if some scenes were missing. Other than that, the movie shows the virtues of most of the others in the series: good acting, sometimes lyrical photography, the creation of a vivid, believable, and uniquely recognizable landscape (the absence of which is obvious in the occasional episode where the director just misses it), and a technical quality that of its nature disguises itself: the imaginatively varied use of limited sets so their limitations seem not to exist. And of course there is the keynote actor, whose presence, as much as his performance, makes it all work. This must be one of the best-sustained series in movie history.

Sentiment: positive
The film is based on Kipling's heroic lines that inspire Hollywood's biggest movie 1939.Out of the drumbeat rhythm of Kipling's most famous 85 lines rises a picture that will become known as the one great movie of the year.Big on the score of its armies in battle,its war elephants,its bandit hordes,its terror temples Thugs and mystic mountains of India .The picture is bigger still in its scope and sweep,is thrill and action but biggest biggest of all in the life breathes through three(Gary Grant,Victor McLagen and Douglas Fairbanks Jr) roaring,reckless,swaggering sons of the thundering gunfighters men who stride its mighty scenes in the flesh and blood of high adventure,it's a honest film of it all that makes Gunga Din a new experience in entertainment .Joan Fontaine gambled her against the valiant sergeants three.The romance between Fontaine and Fairbanks Jr aflame through dangerous days and nights of terror in a land where anything can happen. The motion picture has thrills for a thousand movies plundered for one mighty show.It's a fabulous,furious and far-flung adventure with the red-blood and gunpowder heroes who rise from the storied mystery of India and storm the screen with the lusty,rousing,robust life-thunder of men who fight for the love of it and love for the fun of it.The pictures is interpreted for the brave and roguish Gary Grant who rounded hundred villains Thugs and the mean Guru(Eduardo Ciannelli), Grant shouts : You're under arrest!.Besides is the heroic water man,Sam Jaffe,who regiment colonel(Montagu Love) says of him : You're a better man than I am,Gunga Din!

Sentiment: positive
this film was brilliant! i absolutely loved it! wesley snipes was great for this role - and i'm sure blade 2 would be just as good.

blade is by far one of my favorite action/horror movies out there! and if you havent seen it yet, and like vampires and blood (all that stuff) you should really rent it, because i assure you that you'll love it!

Sentiment: positive
After wasting 2 hours of my life watching this movie on late night television, I went back and reread some of the IMDb material, to remind myself of why I watched it in the first place. In hindsight, the only thing that I can think of is that the genre generally appeals to me. But this movie was a total waste of effort. It fails on every level, and to see that it's described on IMDb as a comedy really leaves me at a loss. I don't recall more than a couple of chuckles. There are more laughs in any episode of Law and Order than in The Last Man. Seriously.

Too much of the characters' interaction just didn't seem to me to have any foundation, and was therefore very unlikely/unbelievable.

If it hadn't been for the almost-gratuitous bikini shots, well, what can I say? Avoid this movie like the plague. Or tape it and just fast forward to the bikini shots. Do not spend even $1 to rent it though.

Sentiment: negative
i was flipping through the channels and had to stop and laugh when i came across this movie. It was so clearly about teens in the early 80s, and i called my mom "hahaha, turn to channel such and such, the kid totally looks like if dad were a kid".

Um. Yeah. Turns out this movie is about my dad & his friends.

Even without it being about loosely based on my dad's childhood, i'd say watch this movie! 

It is just.....bizarre to say the least, the apathy instilled in teens even back then. This is a good "human interest" and showcases some strange sides of the psyche.

Sentiment: positive
when the gilmore girls started in Germany i did not want to watch them because for me it was just something which was not unique. it was a series and i even did not know someone in it. later on, i realized that edward hermann is part of the cast of overboard (a movie, i absolutely adore). i had to watch it once with a friend and never stopped since. it's just fun. you have the feeling that it is okay to have sex before being married and it's okay to be a coffee junkie and to eat unhealthy stuff all the time. i do not do these things all the time but when i do these things i feel a little bit like a gilmore girl. even my boyfriend started to watch them and that tells something. from season to season it got better with the scripts and the stories. they have a open mind and by being different from every other show, you want to be like them.

Sentiment: positive
Writer-director Brian De Palma is best known for his string of films that have been called, somewhat unfairly, "Hitchcock imitations." Contrary to popular belief, De Palma doesn't rip-off Hitchcock; he borrows story or character elements that may have been seen in a Hitchcock film and then expands on them in a more violent, modern way. Like Hitchcock, De Palma is known for mixing blood-soaked death with macabre humor.

"Dressed to Kill," made way back in 1980, is, perhaps, De Palma's most well-known Hitchcockian film, and it's probably his best as well. The story involves a cross-dressing serial killer stalking both a burnt-out housewife (played by Angie Dickinson) and a street-wise hooker (played by Nancy Allen).

Yes, it will remind you distinctly of "Psycho," but De Palma's flick is just as technically ingenious and darkly creative. The museum sequence is particularly well-scored and edited; the elevator stab scene is also one of the most uniquely shot murders ever put on film. "Dressed to Kill" may not be a complete original, but I'd say it's definitely worth your time. Rated R. 105 minutes. 9 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
This lame Harold Lloyd sound film has nary a laugh in it, and makes one wonder if this Lloyd is even the same one that made all of those delightful and hilarious silents.

Lloyd's boyish likability becomes fey and limp when we can hear him talk, and a sluggish, restrained pace replaces the zany antics of his silents. Lloyd plays a young son of a missionary who grows up in China and then finds himself transplanted to contemporary New York City without a clue as to how life outside his Chinese village works. He finds himself an unlikely victor in a mayoral election and quickly draws the ire of all the government organizations because he refuses to look the other way in the face of rampant corruption. When he's framed in an attempt to bring him down, he decides to play just as dirty as everyone else, and stages a fake execution of every crook in NYC as a scare tactic. This darkly satiric ending feels out of place next to everything else in the movie, but it's the only part of the film that comes remotely to life. Everything else is a dull bore.

I don't like having to admit that a Harold Lloyd movie fails, because I like him so much, but I don't have a choice with this one.

Grade: D

Sentiment: negative