DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Every once in awhile I'll remember that I've actually seen this bizarre fiasco that's a cross between "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Sunset Boulevard," the Lana Turner LSD movie "The Big Cube" and the Manson murders, which also took place in 1969 but maybe before this so-called "movie" was made! There are some descriptions of the plot already here, so I won't go into it. But it's worth noting that Miriam Hopkins plays a parody of herself: a chattering, ego-maniacal, fading actress. Perhaps she thought she was making a movie that would be as successful as one of the Bette Davis horrors. The old gal Hopkins never stopped working, so you have to hand it to her. She shows a little too much flesh in this movie, something Davis and Crawford would never have done. And there's a scene with Miriam in the actual tacky Hollywood Boulevard Christmas parade, which must have been filmed Xmas, 1968.

Gale Sondergard is old, old, old. It's just shocking how wrinkled and awful she looks. John Garfield, Jr. looks a bit like his father, but not as interesting. I think one of the Three Stooges is the tour guide at the beginning. If it's not one of the Stooges, it's somebody.

I was astounded to come across this thing in the form of a commercial videotape given to me by a friend who knows all about junk like this. It's amazing!!!

Sentiment: negative
What the hell of a D-Movie was that? Bad acting, bad special effects and the worst dialogues/storyline i ever came across. The only cool thing here was Coolio, who had a nice cameo as a freaked out cop. However, the rest of the film is awful and boring. It's not even so bad, you can laugh about it. Just plain crap. And whoever compares this to the Evil Dead Series might as well compare Tomb Raider to Indiana Jones (well, ok, at least there was Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider)! 1 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
Yes, maybe there are parts of this film which require suspending belief a little but that doesn't take anything away from the film's charm and wonder. It was shown as part of our town's youth film festival and was the organising committee's favourite. Which is not surprising. The subject matter - coming together in a race-torn, though post-apartheid South Africa is highly topical and the treatment of the theme is inspirational. Of course, as the previous comment mentions the film does have its shortcomings, but the realism of the setting and the way the director treats his subject matter belies these shortcomings. I saw this with my wife and we returned the same evening with the children. A film to watch, meditate, discuss and act upon.

Sentiment: positive
What an utter disappointment! The score of 6,1 here on IMDb built up some mild expectations but, oh my, was I disappointed. The first thing that bugs me are those braindead, stereotyped university kids. Yes, I know teens can be childish and so on, but why are they in movies always portrayed as complete braindead morons? There was one character that I thought was alright, but he/she (not revealing it here) was killed off way before the end. The other characters was poorly executed and even the supposed hero/heroine just didn't do it for me. On the plus side: The plot is pretty good and the productions values a cut above for these kind of flicks. The acting was generally not very good, Rutger Hauer stands out in a small role. But it all fails with bland and braindead characters. You just stop caring about them after 10 minutes. 4/10 (and thats being generous).

Sentiment: negative
I saw this in a sneak two days before the official opening, and I must say I was extremely disappointed. And I have to put the majority of these problems on the decision to cast Claire Danes in the lead role. Depending on what you think about Danes, she was either horribly miscast, or is so far in over her head that she should be the early favorite for the 2007 Razzie for Worst Actress. I think we were supposed to be sympathetic to her. Instead, she is completely unlikeable. The other "great" actresses do an OK job, but certainly don't light up the screen. Out of all the "great" actresses in this movie, I'd say the one who did the best job was Natasha Richardson. Streep is barely in the picture, and only appears near the very end.

Horrible screenplay as well. It comes off more as them reading lines than truly being "in character."

Sentiment: negative
For those who like their films full of exploding planets and extreme violence, this is definitely not one to see. In fact, there is very little plot at all (or, at least, very little that could not be summarised in a few seconds: A meets B. Mr A falls for Mrs B and has an affair with her. A and B then fall in love and wonder (at great length) whether to have an affair themselves).

This is Cantonese Visconti. Story there is none, but what you DO get is a succession of wonderful images and poignantly trivial music which convey the slow passage of the central characters' emotions. There is also the chance to see one of the world's most beautiful women in a succession of stunningly elegant outfits. For my money, it's worth seeing for that alone. How could this woman ever have been an action heroine? She looks as though she has stepped straight out of the pages of Vogue.

Sentiment: positive
Spoilers !!! To understand what really happened first you have to be a warrior, to stay alive in real war, to think off-line,analytically,critically and not linear. Otherwise you will come to false conclusions that Maj.Gray was dumb or unstable person. Truth is something completely different. He was firm hardened veteran and only way he could be killed by Capt. O'Malley is that he wants her to kill him. It was his way out. He choose it. He was not man who will retire. If you've never been on a first line you can't understand it. He intentionally prepare his own suicide. First he seduced Mary Jane, than intentionally acted as a dumb, than stageed argue - shutting incident before witnesses (to protect her later after she done what he wants her to do if it comes to trial), than gave her son a bullets (to assure he could load her gun later), came that night, loaded her gun, woke her up, put her gun in her hands, acted as he was attacking her, after shot first time he raised knife and cried "One kill" so she shot him again and before died he put knife off like he was trying to took him back again after first shot. He also gave her a message with his last cry. "After first kill everything will change inside your mind and destroy your life, this is the the only way for me to die as a man, yet to be killed by somebody I love is my choice and my only prerogative, war and army is not what you thought so far, grow up finally and save your life till you can". She left military life at the end. She did understand him. And he did not die in vain. The man who helped him to prepare all that and after to carry out the trial and the outcome of that trial was Col. Sam Doran with help of Lt. Tim Macy. Macy didn't know what is really going on and what will be the outcome but did what he was expected to do. He took photos of Mary Jane and Maj.Gray by order of Col. Sam Doran who gave that order because Maj.Gray asked him to do that. After she refused to leave army (what Col.Doran asked her to do) Col. Doran convinced prosecutor to charge her with a premeditated murder (he knew she cant be found quilty) instead of manslaughter (there was some possibility to be found quilty) with taken photos. Col.Doran also suppress argue-shutting incident to escalate to prevent prosecutor to have any doubt about premeditated murder charge but let it be revealed during the trial what greatly influenced the jury. I have no doubt about outcome of that trial. Why Col. Doran did that way? Because he will do anything Maj.Gray ask him to do. Why? Because he saved his life on a battlefield. Why Mary Jane choose to go to trial? Because she was a person who have integrity, a principles. And that is why Maj.Gray choose her. It has to be somebody deserving, somebody honourable. Keeping his secret about what really happened that night she also prove her honour.

Miroslav

Sentiment: positive
When I first saw this film in cinema 11 years ago, I loved it. I still think the directing and cinematography are excellent, as is the music. But it's really the script that has over the time started to bother me more and more. I find Emma Thompson's writing self-absorbed and unfaithful to the original book; she has reduced Marianne to a side-character, a second fiddle to her much too old, much too severe Elinor - she in the movie is given many sort of 'focus moments', and often they appear to be there just to show off Thompson herself.

I do understand her cutting off several characters from the book, but leaving out the one scene where Willoughby in the book is redeemed? For someone who red and cherished the book long before the movie, those are the things always difficult to digest.

As for the actors, I love Kate Winslet as Marianne. She is not given the best script in the world to work with but she still pulls it up gracefully, without too much sentimentality. Alan Rickman is great, a bit old perhaps, but he plays the role beautifully. And Elizabeth Spriggs, she is absolutely fantastic as always.

Sentiment: negative
I really tried to like this film about a doctor who has the possibility of a new life with a young woman if he can comes to terms with the death of his wife. I suppose this was to play like a quirky light romantic comedy but the theme is a little uncomfortable for me.

But putting that aside, I found the dialog was too much like a stage play despite being based on a novel and also,the mediocre acting was embarrassing to watch especially by the young lead Vincent Spano.

I have been sort of trying to catch up on all the eighties movies I missed during that decade. It has been my pet peeve that eighties nostalgia buffs seem to focus on the same core canon of films usually featuring the brat pack actors and actresses and neglecting the other films like Creator that have fallen through the cracks. But in the case of this feature I have to say I can understand it. Not all of these eighties films were magical and Creator is proof of this.

Sentiment: negative
This had to be one of the most god awful wrestlemanias ever and is only saved by 2 matches. The hardcore match between Edge and Mick Foley, also Vince Mcmahon against Shaun Michaels. The main event between Cena and Triple H was a complete washout and to be honest I nearly fell asleep it was so actionless, the casket match was not worthy of having the Undertaker appear in it and the match between the Boogie Man and Booker T was a complete joke. If you are really a big fan of the WWE and have missed the early days of the WWF and the Wrestlemanias 17 and 19 you'll probably love this. But I found that this Wrestlemania left a lot to be desired.

Sentiment: negative
You'd better choose Paul Verhoeven's even if you have watched it.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is the very worst that I have ever seen. You might think that you have seen some bad movies in your time, but if you haven't seen this one you don't know how terrible a movie can be. But wait, there's worse news! The studio will soon rerelease this masterpiece (I'm being ironic) for all to see! The only things worse than the plot of this movie are the effects, the acting, the direction, and the production. Bill Rebane, the poor man's Ed Wood (not that there is a rich man's Ed Wood) (I like Ed Wood's movies, though) manages to keep things moving at a snail's pace throughout this film. It opens with the capture of a baby bigfoot (a Littlefoot? --sorry, couldn't help it) by a pair of unlikable hunters, who are killed by the parent. This causes the entire town where the hunters lived to go on a Bigfoot hunting jihad. This is pretty much it for the plot. Nothing even remotely interesting happens, and we the viewers are never able to care about any of the characters. If one is interested in the films of Rebane I would recommend almost any other over this. However, as I said, it will soon be rereleased by Troma in order to bore a new generation of filmgoers.

Sentiment: negative
There was something about the original three films that made them so special and delightful - probably the length of them. Unfortunately this lacks the charm, but it still ends up being a fun film. 

The bright, shimmering side is that our favourite plasticene figures are still doing a cracking great job, there is good plasticene animation used, there is a silly, but well-structured and entertaining plot, an exciting, fun adventure, a good plot idea (a were-rabbit and a giant vedgetable competition) and good new characters!

As well as lacking the original charm, the only other slightly gloomy side of the film is that the humour, though good, is slightly overdone, especially compared to the original films.

The popular Giant Vedgetable Competition is drawing near and Wallace and Gromit are helping control rabbits from eating any vedgetables, now they are Anti Pesto. They are doing a good job, but soon, there is danger afoot. A were-rabbit is nearby...

Recommended to all Wallace and Gromit fans and to people who like plasticene films, enjoy "Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Wererabbit"! :-)

Sentiment: positive
I show this film to university students in speech and media law because its lessons are timeless: Why speaking out against injustice is important and can bring about the changes sought by the oppressed. Why freedom of the press and freedom of speech are essential to democracy. This is a must-see story of how apartheid was brought to the attention of the world through the activism of Steven Biko and the journalism of Donald Woods. It also gives an important lesson of free speech: "You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire. Once the flame begins to catch, the wind will blow it higher." (From Biko by Peter Gabriel, on Shaking the Tree).

Sentiment: positive
I came across this movie in an Australian hotel room at 3 am. My brother and I were channel surfing and who do we see but a young Russel Crowe. But not the telephone throwing Russel Crowe we had come to know and quasi-love back in the states. This movie, much to my surprise, was amazingly creative and hilarious. It stars a cast of awkward teens with hilarious stories of odd sexual experiences, including a slick salesman,prostitutes, and an unusual sexy mother. If you are lucky enough to come across this film I would strongly suggest picking it up. I have to say this movie was amazingly entertaining and I thank the fine people of Australia making it...

Sentiment: positive
Upon seeing this film once again it appeared infinitely superior to me this time than the previous times I have viewed it. The acting is stunningly wonderful. The characters are very clearly drawn. Brad Pitt is simply superb as the errant son who rebels. The other actors and actresses are equally fine in every respect. Robert Redford creates a wonderful period piece from the days of speakeasies of the 1920s. The scenery is incredibly beautiful of the mountains and streams of western Montana. All in all, this is one of the finest films made in the 1990s.

You must see this movie!



Sentiment: positive
I saw the long day's dying when it first came out at the cinema, I thought the film gave a good soldiers point of view, it gave a realistic account, of men at war. The storyline moves at a nice pace, showing a group of men behind enemy lines, and trying to return back to their own lines with an enemy prisoner. The characters are well developed, and believable.

David Hemmings is a good actor and plays the leading role with conviction, as does Alan Dobie (as German Helmut) I was surprised, that i have been unable to find this film on VHS or DVD, and I feel it has become the forgotten film, which is sad , as it is superior to many other war films I have seen.

Sentiment: positive
I rarely make these comments but I felt compelled to spare others the pain I endured in watching this movie. It's so stupid and implausible both in the overall story and in the details that you simply can't suspend disbelief. The problem starts early, when you see a government researcher tooling around in a new Porsche and dining with his team in a restaraunt that looks like a castle, overlooking the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. That kind of life on a government salary? Hah! It only gets worse. Toward the end, when the bad guy starts killing off the good guys, the latter group act so stupidly that you want them to die, in order to cleanse the gene pool. The special effects are pretty good - any producer's money can buy that - and the lead actors have been great in other films, but the screenplay and direction here are moronic. Many people have wondered whether there was some deliberate intelligence behind Paul Verhoeven's previous, facially stupid movies (Showgirls, Starship Troopers), but this movie should stop the wondering. He's just plain bad.

Sentiment: negative
Keeping all political views aside, Feroz Khan and Anil Kapoor's 'Gandhi, My Father' is a good movie that cleverly explores the confused-towards-family side of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and the fight of his eldest son Harilal Gandhi with the society, his larger-than-life father, and most importantly demons in his head. One draws parallels to Gandhi the father of the nation and struggles any son could have with their father

The acting is good. Shefali Shetty, Darshan Zariwala and Akshaye Khanna-strictly in that order- add color and pathos to this heart wrenching tale of Harilal who weeps to be hugged just once and also runs away at the faintest touch of the finger.

Feroz Khan's direction and the production canvas is lavish and attractive, however, the screenplay could've been tighter. I had seen the play some years ago on a pirated video type DVD (it was called Mahatama vs Gandhi, I think) and it was certainly more gripping. Though, the movie's background score and the father-son and mother-son moments are just a brilliant treat.

This movie could have been great. It's borderline to that. It has the potential so huge to have been just a story differences between a father and son or just Gandhi or even both. somewhere, the plot is lost and when you expect absolute epitome of emotions, nothing comes to you.

It compares decently to other Gandhi's. Certainly not an overview film like Kingsley's Gandhi,or abstract as Kamal Hassan's Hey Ram. The film just about manages to find its footing; however, one is left wondering "what if..." Worth a watch. 7.5/10

Sentiment: positive
The centerpiece of Lackawanna Blues is the character Rachel "Nanny" Crosby, who runs a boardinghouse and provides unflagging support to a young boy, Ruben, the narrator of the film. Based upon the experiences of writer-actor Ruben Santiago-Hudson, the film lovingly recreates the upstate New York boardinghouse and evokes the cultural climate of a world in transition in the 1960s. 

The first half of the film is virtually non-stop music. The second half addresses more completely the various characters in the boardinghouse. Nanny's ability "to take fragments and make them whole" affects everyone within her sphere. An especially vivid scene is when she confronts an abusive husband, telling him firmly, "If you ever touch that child again, we're going to dance!" As delivered by actress S. Epatha Merkerson, that line is so steely and filled with such resolve that the husband with the hair-trigger temper is frozen in his tracks. 

From start to finish, Merkerson delivers a commanding presence Her character binds together the disparate lives of the borders in her home. This was a touching, heartfelt film with a wonderful cast. As played by Merkerson, the character of Nanny simply radiates love. This is a film experience that I will remember for a long time to come.

Sentiment: positive
This "movie" is such a bad work! Nothing seems to even try and be realistic. Plot is weak, acting - miserable, actors wondering around like in a 1st year production, trying very hard to act with no chance at all from the beginning. What a flop! What a waste of time, money and effort to all concerned including the audience. Well, as in any thriller, here too are murders, corpses and blood. Just imagine someone who 5 minutes ago, committed a murder with a knife, and came out calm and smiling, not to mention clean as a whistle, as if slashing one's throat is done by a virtual agent. Also, this murder was supposed to be done by a tiny fragile woman on a high strong male, and she cut his throat!!! Did she ask him, politely, to bend down for her? Much more stupidity of that same kind is going on and on leaving the audience wondering if this meant to be a joke which just turned out to be a bad one. Continuity is another huge problem as for instance: The eager-hungry groom is lying in bed, waiting for his virgin-bride to get out of the bathroom and after a long while, falls asleep(!?!). Next scene opens with the young couple entering the reception-area, asking for guidance to scenery spots! NOT A WORD ABOUT LAST NIGHT??? Such a waste of time even to try and write about this low-low supposed-to-be "movie".

Sentiment: negative
I saw this kung fu movie when I was a kid, and I thought it was so cool! Now I am 26 years old, and my friend has it on DVD!!!

We got a case of brew, and watched this classic! It lost NONE of it's original kung fu coolness! If you are a fan of kung fu/karate movies, this is a must see... the DVD is available. I believe this movie is also called "Pick Your Poison".

Watch it soon!

Sentiment: positive
A malfunction in space sends astronaut Neil Stryker (Glenn Corbett) off course and headed to something of a parallel world, called Terra, circling the sun exactly opposite Earth. As a being from space would pose a threat to this world's order, Stryker is held until a determination can be made as to exactly what to do with him. Stryker, however, gets suspicious of his surroundings and escapes. With the help of a sympathetic nurse and a old scientist who opposes the government, Stryker will try to board a spaceship and head back to Earth.

Stranded in Space (or The Stranger if you prefer) is another of those 70s made-for-TV movies that was to be turned into a regular, weekly show. In this case, it's easy to see why it didn't make it. First off, there's nothing new about the show's set-up. It was undoubtedly designed to follow the same formula used by The Fugitive or The Incredible Hulk or Planet of the Apes. You know, a stranger constantly on the move going from one town to the next taking whatever odd job he can all the while being pursued by a government agency or newspaper reporter. It's a formula that's been done to death. The second strike against Stranded in Space is its lead, Glenn Corbett. Could this guy come across any less likable? I was rooting for him to get caught. Without sympathy for the main character, this kind of show would never work. Finally, this is supposed to be science fiction. Just because everyone is left-handed and someone has hung three fake looking moons on the horizon I'm supposed to jump to the conclusion that this is some distant planet? So it's a mere coincidence that they all speak English, dress just like people on Earth, and drive Plymouth Furies? Yeah, right.

The lone highlight for me was the inclusion of Cameron Mitchell in the cast. Sure, it's difficult to watch him in something this dreadful, but you know the old saying - any Cameron is better than no Cameron (yeah, I've never heard it either).

As with a lot of these 70s made-for-TV movies, I watched Stranded in Space courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I wouldn't call it a great episode by any stretch of the imagination, but there are a few good jokes along the way. So in the end, while I rate the movie a 2/10, it gets a 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.

Sentiment: negative
When this was released, I thought this was one of the most profane films ever made. However, thanks to Martin Scorcese and a few other filmmakers like him, there have been mainline films worse, language-wise, than this....but this is a pretty brutal assault on one's ears. Hey, I can take a lot of it, but this got ridiculous. In the first six minutes alone, I heard a half-dozen usage's of the Lord's name in vain plus an untold number of f-words. I wonder how many people walked out of the theater watching this in 1990? I couldn't have been the only one.

Not surprisingly, some of the feature actors included Jennifer Jason-Leigh, Burt Young, Jerry Orbach and Rikki Lake. Since this film, Stephen Lang seems to have improved his image, at least playing the Godly "Stonewall" Jackson in "Gods and Generals." Lang's role here is just the opposite: perhaps the worst trashy person in the film and a character who falls in love with a transvestite by the end of the film.

Depressing, gloomy, semi-pornographic, repulsive: these are just a few of the adjectives people used - even some Liberal critics - in describing this story, which is painted even worse in the novel. Of course, some of the better-known critics, all extreme Libs, praised the movie. However, they were the only ones. Most critics were disgusted, as well almost all of the paying public. It's unbelievable that anyone could praise filth and garbage like this.

Trust me on this: there are no good, likable characters in this entire movie. This is a mean, sick film: one of the worst of the "modern era." That is, unless you enjoy seeing child abuse, drug abuse, teen prostitutes, on and on - two straight hours of nothing but atrocities and just plain evil people. No thanks.

Sentiment: negative
Awful dreams, wild premonitions, blasphemy and homosexual fantasies permeate Paul Verhoeven's (arguable) masterpiece of a true femme fatale who loves her men then kills them. Filled with blood and occasional gore, The Fourth Man is truly neurosis inducing. Men will literally leap when Renee swings out her scissors......

Sentiment: positive
Beware My Lovely originated from a play written by Mel Dinelli who apparently liked writing about frightened women. His first and best effort was the screenplay for The Spiral Staircase. He also did a Loretta Young suspense thriller Cause For Alarm a couple of years earlier. The play Dinelli wrote was originally entitled The Man and it ran for 92 performances on Broadway during the 1950 season. It was Dinelli's only effort on Broadway and it starred Dorothy Gish and Richard Boone. 

The roles that Gish and Boone played are taken by Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan. For whatever reason RKO thought to eliminate the age difference. Dinelli himself rewrote his play for the screen so I'm wondering what he thought about that. Certainly the frailty issue was eliminated completely from the story.

That wasn't the only thing that was eliminated. The people are all wearing period clothing from around World War I yet there's no reference at all to the time this story takes place in. I thought that strange and later on when the telephone company repairman comes to Ida Lupino's residence, I noticed his truck was a vintage one of the same era.

The film is almost entirely set within Ida Lupino's home where she's hired an itinerant stranger in Robert Ryan as a handyman. The film is a great object lesson in not hiring strangers without reference. It turns out that Ryan is a schizophrenic who imprisons Lupino in her home for about a day.

Both the leads do fine jobs even with the changes made. Films like Beware My Lovely are the stuff that a small studio like RKO did best. If this were done at MGM or Paramount the glossy trappings would have overwhelmed a solid story.

Sentiment: positive
this is a TV movie based on the murder of Martha Moxley in Greenwich in the mid 1970's.based how much on truth it's hard to tell.this much is certain.it is based on the book written by Mark Fuhrman.anyway,the movie depicts the crime in flashbacks and its aftermath,including the arrest of a suspect,some 25 years after,who was never considered a suspect at the time.in the movie,Fuhram of course is largely responsible for the arrest and closure of the case for Martha's surviving family,in particular her mother.the narrative of the film is by the ghost of Martha Moxley,talking in the first person.this is a very effective device in this movie.to me,it adds more impact to the movie,and puts a human face on the murder victim(if only an actress playing the part)Maggie grace plays Martha,and i was really impressed with her.there is no way for certain to know Mark Fuhrman's motive in investigating the crime.it could have been out of a sense of justice and maybe he really cared.or maybe he just saw dollar signs from a future bestselling book.either way,it makes for an interesting movie.it's well acted and fairly fast paced.i don't think there was a lot of extra,unnecessary stuff in the movie,just what was needed to tell the story.one could argue that they left out things that would have shed a bit more light on the proceedings,and one would be right.also,one may argue that the ending was abrupt and again one would be right.but,as i said,for me,i think they told the story with at least most of the essentials.anything else would have likely required a miniseries.as an aside,there is a miniseries entitled "A Season in Purgatory" which came out 6 years ealier(1996)which this movie has some parallels to,even if only faint.however,if you like this movie,"Then you may be interested in "A Season in Purgatory". it is my belief that "a Season in Purgatory" is in fact a fictionalized account of the same crime.anyway,for me,Murder in Greenwich" is an 8/10

Sentiment: positive
Of course, "Flatley" is already not exactly the ideal name for a dancer, but I think Michael is really pushing the irony envelope with this new title: "Feet of Flames" 

One really can't resist recommending Desenex Foot Spray to the retiring (and clearly, ailing) Flatley.

I might add that, much like that cheering London crowd (per review below), I too am enthusiastic about this being his last live performance.

"Hinting that it may be his last live performance, Flatley is cheered on by an enthusiastic London crowd." ~ Perry Seibert, All Movie Guide

Sentiment: negative
This Kiyoshi Kurosawa ghost movie is pretty wild, and it did have at least one jump scare that caught me off guard. But all in all, the movie is incredibly stupid, with a detective trying to track down a suspected serial killer, only to find out he may have committed one of the crimes. Then he finds himself haunted by a gorgeous Asian lady ghost, and has no idea why (and neither does the viewer). As other murders are committed, he becomes even more confused as the killers are easily found, and this ghost still haunts him for some reason. Not only is the plot completely stupid, the lady ghost is more funny than anything, especially when she suddenly flies across the city, like Wonder Woman. And the ending makes little sense, in fact, the whole movie makes little sense, and I can't recommend it at all. If it didn't take itself so serious, I would think it was supposed to be a black comedy. Outside of "Bright Future" this is the worst movie directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa I have seen yet.

Sentiment: negative
David Lynch's new short is a very "Lynchian" piece, full of darkness, tension, silences, discreet but very textured background music, and features again two beautiful actresses, a blonde and a brunette, a recurrent theme in his work.

Both characters create a very intriguing slave-mistress relationship that could be seen as a direct follow up to the same kind of relationship featured in Mulholland Dr.

Beautiful. For Lynch fan's.



Sentiment: positive
I'd heard a lot of bad things about this film before seeing it, but thought all the negative comments were probably down to the film's low budget and poor acting - both of which I can deal with when it comes to zombie films. However, what I didn't count on is this film being really, really boring; if there's one thing you can count on from low budget zombies, its gore and entertainment - but unfortunately, this film has neither. I'm quite surprised, because the previous two horror films I've seen from director Bob Clark - Deathdream and Black Christmas - were both highly inventive and entertaining films, but Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things just doesn't cut it. The plot line follows a group of young adults that travel to a burial island in order to mess about with rituals to bring the dead back to life. However, they soon learn that playing with things they don't understand is a really stupid idea when their rituals actually bring the dead back to life and the corpses of the island return to feast on their blood!

The plots sounds like it could lead to a decent flick, but what I didn't mention is that the interesting parts don't start until the final twenty minutes; and as this is a ninety minute movie, I'm sure you can guess that this isn't a good thing. The opening hour and ten minutes are padded out with poor acting and even worse characters. I can understand setting up a situation so that the horror is more potent once it comes along; but please, if you're going to spend so long on it, you've really got to make it interesting. All of the characters in the film are over the top and annoying, and personally I just wanted the zombies to hurry up and eat them. The film is not without its merits, however, as the atmosphere is a standout. Lucio Fulci would show seven years later how an isolated island and flesh eating zombies can blend well; but Bob Clark already did it with this film. The direction isn't bad either, but it's brought down by poor make-up effects and a distinct lack of blood, which isn't likely to please fans of zombie movies. Overall, I really can't recommend this film; but if you're a hardcore zombie fanatic, you may get a kick out of it.

Sentiment: negative
In the 60's, having as the background the rehearsal and recording of "Sympathy for the Devil" in the classic album "Beggar's Banquet" by the revolutionary bad boy Rolling Stones  Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and Brian Jones  plus Marianne Faithful, Godard discloses other contemporary revolutionary and ideological movements  the Black Power through the Black Panthers, the feminism, the communism, the fascism - entwined with the reading of a cheap pulp political novel divided in the chapters: "The Stones Rolling; "Outside Black Novel"; "Sight and Sound"; "All About Eve"; "The Heart of Occident"; "Inside Black Syntax"; and, "Under the Stones the Beach".

"Sympathy for the Devil" is another pretentious and boring mess of the uneven director Jean-Luc Godard. The narrative and the footages are awful, but fortunately I love the Stones and "Sympathy for the Devil" and it is nice to see them in the beginning of their careers; otherwise this documentary would be unbearable. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Sympathy for the Devil"

Sentiment: negative
I did enjoy watching Squire Trelane jerk around the crew in this episode, though after a while the whole thing just seemed a little too long. Sure, the histrionics were kind of funny for a while, and the ending was a pretty good way to wrap the whole thing together. I think the problem was that I enjoyed seeing Trelane when he was full of bravado and fun, the fun seemed to vanish when Trelane became vindictive and nasty. Talk about a mood killer--going from the obnoxious but affable host to the guy sentencing Kirk to death! But, despite this, the episode was enjoyable and worth my time. For die-hard Trekkies, this is a must-see, for others it's just a pretty run of the mill one.

Sentiment: positive
The movie has a good start portraying an interesting and strong Shannon Lee and introduces two very simpathetic side characters through the first half. But later something happens and all the sudden Shannon turns into this straight faced, second hand bad girl and the movie gets lost in it's own context. The second half lacks any kind of charisma and is full of clichés, bad acting, a horrible plot and even worse stunt coordination. Not to mention the horrible actors they chose for the chechen mafia gang.

"Game of Death 2" was bad and clownified Bruce, but his daughter tops it making an even bigger embarrassment of herself than the double who played Bruce Lee back then. I truly believe that she can do much better than this and I hope she participates in a better production next time.

If you are a real hard core action fan and don't care about quality go ahead and see this movie. I was personally looking forward to it but just got terribly disappointed.

Sentiment: negative
A giant praying mantis is awakened from its sleep in the artic region and heads south causing havoc. Boats, planes and trains meet their match with the flying creature. Before unleashing its full wrath on NYC, the mantis meets its doom at the hands of the armed forces in a New York tunnel. The special effects are of course crude by todays standards, but for a ten year old boy in 1957 this was very memorable.

Starring are William Hopper, Craig Stevens, Alix Talton and Pat Conway.

Sentiment: negative
Honest to God, the Outline pretty much says it all. The planet Andromina (not to be confused with Aunt Jemima) is represented by a cheap L.A. stripclub. There's no strippers, so the most recent male visitors go off to recruit strippers.

The men get mistaken for kings or arrested for spying on women (although despite the fact its a planet of women we only get two women who participate in any girl-girl sex scenes), and eventually, as always happen in science fiction cliche movies everywhere, the women become convinced that men are good for something. Well, not the men who made this movie, at any rate!

But boy, do we get to see a lot of that something, in prodigious amounts of softcore sex and nudity. This one has less plot then usual for such flicks, so change the channel if you don't like this kind of movie, and grit your teeth if you're into this kind of thing.

Sentiment: negative
White Fire has so much going for it. With Larry Bird look-alike Robert Ginty leading the charge blazing away with his fabulous hair and super macho mustache, the movie soars above other low-budget actioners. The charisma he has in this makes Tom Selleck look like a putz. With Ginty beating up everyone, the movie only rises in awesomeness when a story of diamond intrigue enters into play. Then add in Fred Williamson, some frontal bush, chainsaw attacks and some awesome incest themes....this flick ends up delivering on all cylinders. If you're looking for some awesome B-Action, this is where it's at. Now, if I can just get my hands on that soundtrack.

Sentiment: positive
In 1594 in Brazil, the Tupinambas Indians are friends of the Frenches and their enemies are the Tupiniquins, friends of the Portugueses. A Frenchman (Arduíno Colassanti) is captured by the Tupinambás, and in spite of his trial to convince them that he is French, they believe he is Portuguese. The Frenchman becomes their slave, and maritally lives with Seboipepe (Ana Maria Magalhães). Later, he uses powder in the cannons that the Portuguese left behind to defeat the Tupiniquins in a battle. In order to celebrate the victory, the Indians decide to eat him. 

"Como Era Gostoso o Meu Francês" is another great low budget movie of the great Brazilian director Nélson Pereira dos Santos. The screenplay is very original and the story is spoken in Tupi. The film is shot using natural light most of the time and is very realistic. The actors and actresses perform naked and Ana Maria Magalhães is magnificent, showing a wonderful body and giving a stunning performance. The sound is produced by the Brazilian musician Zé Rodrix. This movie shows the beginning of the exploitation of my country by Europeans, focusing in the Portuguese and French at that time, trading with the Indians and exchanging combs and mirrors by our natural resources. This movie was awarded in the national festivals, such as the 1971 Brazilian Cinema Festival of Brasília (Festival de Brazília do Cinema Brasileiro) with Best Screenplay (Nelson Pereira dos Santos), Best Dialog (Nelson Pereira dos Santos and Humberto Mauro) and Best Cenograph (Régis Monteiro); Art Critics Association of São Paulo (Associação Paulista dos Críticos de Arte), with best Revelation of the Year (Ana Maria Magalhães) and some other prizes. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Como Era Gostoso o Meu Francês" ("How Tasty Was My Frenchman")

Sentiment: positive
Perhaps the best Isabel Allende's book, House of the Spirits describes an alternative chilean history, this one full of magic, a mystic veil, plus some kind of omnipresent sadness. This movie gathers a great cast, plus a great art direction, with a script that cannot contain all this book's quality. It's unusual for a nearly unknown country like Chile to get so well represented as it is by this movie, whose perhaps only sin is to aim too high, and because of that left the illiterate public a little upset, mostly because they understood very little.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this recently with my wife and discovered it's better than Caine believes, although it's not much cop. Britain's greatest ever screen actor does not seem too interested in this role, which is a pity as he might have elevated it with more conviction in his playing. Rex Harrison seems even less bothered, perhaps unsurprisingly, as his character is very poorly written. William Holden is better, but his screen time is fleeting and, again, his character is not well scripted.

Beverly Johnson is as beautiful a woman as I have ever seen, but is given very little to do, the film might have gained a great deal by concentrating more on her story. Ustinov steals the show, but basically by playing a comic character quite out of keeping with the film's serious tone. The music is poor and Omar Sharif makes one of his many pointless cameos (his career has been based on this for decades now).

Richard Fleischer has to be blamed for not directing this more effectively, he was an infuriatingly unpredictable film director, and this is one of his weaker movies.

Sentiment: negative
Very rarely does Denzil Washington make a bad movie and come to think of it that goes for Kevin Kline and in this case , this must count as one of their best films. It is more about of film about how strong friendship can more than the story of Steve Biko although we do get an insight into what the man was like and how far the reporter and friend Donald Woods went to preserve the mans name and let the world know what a corrupt , putrid society South Africa was. The Direction is outstanding from David Attenborough as it was for Gandhi although if there is any critisism to be aimed it could be at the length of the film. Two and a half hours is a long time to sit through a historic movie .What is amazing is how he manages to control all the extras. Thousands of people in both films. This film really does open your eyes to what happened before the break up of Aparthiet and you cannot fail to moved by it. 8 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is little more than poorly-made, fetish porn, and this is saying a lot considering the similar crap that was made in that era. This was recommended to me by friend as a "unique film experience." He was right. I suppose he meant that as a joke. Not disgusting, not even that shocking. Just mediocre acting and poor attempts at shock art. A little bit of camp value, though I don't believe the makers of this film intended this. And yes, as a previous reviewer mentioned, it's sex with a guy in a bear suit. Don't spend a lot of money on this. Try to borrow it, if you must see it. Or contact me, I'd be happy to sell you my copy for half price.

I may have to see another of this particular director's films, as he seems to have a certain following. But if it's anything like this, I will again regret another 2 hours of my life gone forever.

Sentiment: negative
Well its about time. I had really given up any and all hope that there was going to be a standout episode among this season's entries. While there have still been far too many drab to hohum entries, at least this episode turned out well. Its rather funny that director Rob Schmidt who only has the not bad Wrong Turn to his credit and writer John Esposito whose only scripting chores to date have included Tale Of The Mummy and Graveyard Shift should be the ones to give us the best written and most thought provoking episode of the season. In "Right To Die" we are treated to the story of Cliff and Abbey. At the start of the episode the couple are having a conversation. Abbey has caught Cliff cheating and he is desperately trying to win her back. While they speak, they find themselves in a car accident where Cliff is left with only scratches and bruises, but Abbey is thrown from the car and catches on fire when a spark ignites and gasoline that had dripped onto her catches her on fire. And this is just the setup people. Once in the hospital Cliff must decide whether or not Abbey should live in this state with no skin and only nerve reflexes. There's also a side effect too. Every time she flatlines, Abbey goes a walking as a ghost and causes trouble for all sorts of people. Hands down this is the best episode of the season and certainly ranks as one of the top episodes ever. From the gruesome effects to the taut script which threw in a few twists I never saw coming and suspense so palpable you can almost touch it, Right To Die should have the right to go on living forever.

Sentiment: positive
If I could give it a zero, I'd change my mind and give it a -10 instead. Absolutely horrible movie with no movie plot, doesn't make sense of what is happening. Just PLAIN BORING. Please don't waste your money on this one. Pleaseee!!! This movie could have done so well if it truly depicted the real zodiac killer's story, but nopes, I didn't feel anything but disgust while watching it. Do yourself a favor and rent some classic movies instead, its better to watch a movie you've already seen like 3-4 times than watch this crap! I don't understand why people even bother to make such movies when they know its not going to do well. Zodiac killer should be called 'Boriac killer' instead!!!

Sentiment: negative
I loved Heavenly Creatures and make it a point to catch it whenever it is on.

So, imagine my delight when I discovered Love & Suicide while browsing NetFlix. Echoing Heavenly Creatures, an easy choice, to the top of my queue it went.

I watched it last, made myself comfy, and waited. What I thought was some crappy preview of a stoned high school student's prank film project (I laughed out loud once or twice, thinking "that just lowered the bar of straight to video") turned out to be the movie. Horrible acting, amateur direction, weak dialog. I usually enjoy low budget films, there is something tangible and real about them because they cannot afford the superficial stuff to distract from the "meat" the acting, the direction, the plot, the story. I would liken it to a student who hasn't studied for an exam goes in knowing he is going to fail and just puts his head on the desk and sleeps.

In someone else's hands the plot would have serious potential.

Do not expect magic or even a cult classics like, say, Divine's Polyester, or Showgirls, at least there you learn to expect bad acting.

Love & Suicide went from bad, to worse, to the WORST movie I have ever seen.

Sentiment: negative
I was looking for ATTACK on Precinct 13. There, the film is THAT memorable. Who is the star of this? Ethan Hawke or Matt Dillon (I can't tell who the lead actor is, that's a pretty big point against the movie right there) Gabriel Byrne (who could't have needed the money this badly could he?) Drea De Matteo is stunning but only because of her amazing body. It took me ages to finally work out she's Joey's sister off "Friends". I agree that the so called SWAT people attacking the station are pretty crap, as far as tactics go. We were even taught better basic skills than this in RAF basic training.

Avoid this, even the snow doesn't want to fall on a bus full of prisoners! Very bad continuity indeed.

Avoid like the plague!

Sentiment: negative