DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I am normally not compelled to write a review for a film, but the only commentary for this film thus far on is rather unfair, so I feel it necessary to share my point of view.

"Krisana" (or as it was titled at the theater I saw it, "Fallen") follows Matiss, a lonely Latvian archivist, as he tries to learn about a woman whom he didn't try to stop from jumping off a bridge, as well as her reasons for doing so. That's the plot in a nutshell, but this film is not concerned with story as much it is in depicting the guilt of a man who failed to act. As a detective who investigates the incident tells him, we usually don't bother to care about the anonymous faces we pass every day until after they die.

Comparisons to Michaelango Antonioni and his "Blowup" will most likely abound in any review you read about "Krisana." The influence of Antonioni's philosophical and austere style and the story of "Blowup" are clear and, in fact, writer/director Fred Kelemen makes an obvious reference to that film in scenes in which Matiss attempts to come to know the woman who jumped off the bridge, or at least who he thinks did.

The only other person to share his or her views on the film detracts the "college film class" look and sound of the film. He or she neglects to consider the budgetary constraints that an existentialist Latvian film most likely faces, but the atmospheric black and white cinematography and ambient sound succeeds at an artistic level to depict the solitude of Matiss. The background sound of wind and street noises lend an ominous aura and reminds one of a Fellini film, whether or not that was Kelemen's intention. The filmmakers undoubtedly had little money, but this constraint is used to the film's advantage.

"Krisana" succeeds as a character study with enough humor thrown in to keep it from being too self-serious. It could have easily fell into the trappings of a mystery story, but it avoids that and becomes an intelligent film about loneliness and guilt. If you are more concerned with plot, this film and its ending may frustrate you. Otherwise, take the time to be engaged by it. It is well-worth seeking out.

Sentiment: positive
The Good Earth is a great movie!!!Everybody must see...It is tear-jerking and very heart warming. It caters to the enhancement of values-formation on perseverance, humility and the love of family...The story can be related to our life today especially that poverty is at the threshold. The way on how we respond to such problem is very crucial and if a person is not strong enough to face such, he may be left defenseless and useless. I am very pleased on how the characters justified their roles even the young actors...Their emotions has captivated the audience. The movie may have been done in black and white, but the story is so captivating that you do not want to end. That makes it really great! There should be a re-make for this very nice movie.

Sentiment: positive
Being that I am a true product of the hip-hop and electronic dance music generation, this is without a doubt one of my favorite movies of all time. Beat Street, although not as "authentic" in some respects as Wild Style, is a film that is guaranteed to tug the heart strings of anyone who takes pride in the culture of urban sample/DJ-based music and electro-club culture.

Although I will admit that at times the dialogue is somewhat cheesy, you can't help but feel for the characters, and ultimately "wish you were there" for the beginnings of hip-hop culture in New York City in the early eighties. The b-boy battle scene at the Roxy nightclub (a real-life, real-time competition between the legendary Rock Steady Crew and the NYC Breakers) is just as essential to a hip-hop fan's archives as any classic album. Watch some of the breakers' moves in slow-motion if possible to truly appreciate the athletic and stylistic expertise of a seasoned B-boy/B-girl. All praises due to the Zulu Nation!!!

Sentiment: positive
There's not really that much wrong with Crash of the Moons. Basically it's a few episodes of Rocky Jones, Space Ranger merged into a film. It is extremely dated, however. Winky's treatment of Vena is a good example of this. One has to remember that it was geared to be shown to children in the 1950's. In this respect, it succeeds. If you like children's sci-fi from the 1950's, go ahead and take a look at it. You'll see John Banner in a pre-sgt. Schultz role. He does a pretty good job in it. All in all, I'd give it a 6 out of 10. Not great, but not bad.

Sentiment: negative
This film is a Pia Zadora special! When viewing it, I was reminded of the classic cartoon showing a Hollywood starlet; in urgent need of another role but afraid of becoming typecast for 'B' movie or soft porn roles; who says at her casting session "Well of course I do not normally do roles requiring nudity, but if it is artistically necessary for the film...............". This recollection brought up a very naughty image of a similar cartoon showing Pia at such a session saying "Well of course I do not normally take any roles requiring actual acting, but if it will really give me sufficient exposure to enhance my status as a sex symbol..................". This is probably grossly unfair, the rather sordid tale is the fault of Harold Robbins book; considering the nature of the story Pia's exposures certainly do not receive undue attention, and perhaps Pia (who once won an acting award in Butterfly) is deliberately satirising her part rather than attempting to act in an almost unplayable role. Critics usually point first to the actors as the problem whenever a film proves disappointing, but this is grossly unfair; the scriptwriters and director are far more often the guilty parties. The real problem with "The Lonely Lady" is that the screenplay, like the original book, looks for sensation rather than substance, and nothing can help with this. 

	The screenplay for this film is abysmal, but whether the story could have been filmed more successfully with a better script, tauter directing and really competent acting must remain a matter of personal judgement. As it was released, my viewers rating for it would depend upon whether I am assessing my personal opinion, or assessing to what extent the film succeeds in providing what it aims at doing. My personal rating for it would be two out of ten; but to some extent this film probably provides exactly what its sponsors intended, and judged on this basis a quality rating of four out of ten would be reasonable. Being in a charitable mood, and wanting to make it clear that I am not blaming Pia for my disappointment, I will give an IMDb rating of four.

Sentiment: negative
I was swept into this series just as surely as the sea would sweep me into its grip. Although it started out slowly, I found that the realism in depicting the ship, the variety of characters and lively dialogue keep me watching. The protagonist was destined to be challenged, grow and change on this voyage and I wanted to be there for it. I was not disappointed. The series took you from humor to tragedy and everything in-between, often in the same scene, the same breath. There was a wealth of emotional overlaying, interaction and expression--relentless and compelling to observe. The movement of the ship added an almost fanciful component to the many scenes, making the characters ill one moment and adding humor the next.

Edmund Talbot is a complex character, the likes of which we don't see often. We may know where the captain stands or Mr. Prettiman, but they are older men, set in their ways. Talbot was young and arrogant, still learning, testing himself and being tested. He struggled getting along with others and made mistakes like a real person would but had a heart that could be touched, that grew with each hard-taught experience. I appreciate the excellent characterization; it's too rare in movies and television.

Sentiment: positive
When a loser teen is bitten by an insect, he becomes the superhero Dragonfly...

Superhero Movie is the latest spoof movie to hit the screens. Sadly however, despite the presence of David Zucker (who was involved with Airplane!, Top Secret and The Naked Gun movies) it still suffers from the fault most recent spoofs have...mainly it's more dumb than fun! The fault mainly lies with the gags. It's simply not funny enough. Some of the jokes do work, such as the nail gun scene, but other parts simply fall flat. The X-men spoof for example, or the whole farting sequence. Blazing Saddles this isn't! One of the key things about the best spoof movies, like Airplane is that although the dialog is extremely funny, the cast for the most part play is completely straight. This makes it even funnier. Even when there is simple dialog in the foreground, there may well be funny things happening behind the cast. Again funny. The other key thing is that they all have a plot of sorts, to hang the gags on.

The recent trend seems to be to take scenes from various movies, THEN try and spoof them. As a result the so-called plot of these movies very rarely exist. Another flaw these movies have, is that some of the scenes were actually funny in the original versions, and in most cases even funnier than the spoof scene! The cast try to get into the spirit required, but with a lot of unfunny dialog and scenes, it's hard to get worked up about it.

As recent spoof movies go, it's not as bad as Epic Movie, Date Movie, or the awful Meet The Spartans, but considering that some people involved here have made good, funny movies in the past, it's nowhere near good enough.

Sentiment: negative
Police Squad! (1982) was a funny show that ended too soon. But I guess it had it's run before it got too repetitive and unfunny like so many American television shows. The geniuses behind this funny show were the team of Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker. Every since his straight act in the comedy hit AIRPLANE!, Leslie Nielsen has found a new career as a comedian. In this short lived t.v. series he had the chance to play the straight man in a wacky comedy once more. The bizarre titles to each episode gave away the ending. But Lt. Drebrin (Leslie Nielsen) got into so many weird cases that they have to be seen to be believed.

Tooo bad they never released this on D.V.D. If a show needed to be re-released it would have to be this one. A whole new generation is waiting to see this show!

Highly recommended!

Sentiment: positive
if u haven't seen Vijay in "Ghillli", "Gilly" or "Ghillie". go watch it. wow. its devastatingly hilarious. i don't know if Dharani (the brilliant director) was being serious or not. There are tons of hot guys in this one, look out for someone who calls Velu "Maacha". The one with the brilliant braids, devastatingly hot. His teeth are brilliant as well. Vijay rocks. Trisha cries every 5 seconds. It is very deep. Watch it, you won't regret it. There are some great laughs in this one. If you don't speak Tamil, learn it. Then you will get all the inside jokes. It is one for the whole family, except maybe the violent bits should be skipped. I've seen this movie around eleven times .... and counting.

Wow!

Sentiment: positive
Although the recent re-telling of part of Homer's epic "Troy" with Brad Pitt was entertaining once, "Iphigenia" with the incandescent Irene Pappas is breathtaking. Unfolding in a natural setting with Greek actors speaking their own language lends such authenticity. A chance encounter with this film on one of DirecTV's many movie channels kept me interested in spite of my concentration problems. There is no glitter or "bling" in this movie, just a fabulously rich story impeccably told by actors so real one feels they are eavesdropping on a real family in turmoil. I think even Homer, if he really existed, would be proud of this telling.

JLH

Sentiment: positive
i know you've read that before, on countless other films no doubt if you're reading the comments here, but voodoo academy still stands as the absolute worst film i've been able to track down. no doubt the really bad ones aren't even available to buy or watch on tv, but even so i feel it's fair to qualify that i'm not just some dumb renter who picked badly.

i've seen two thirds of the bottom 100 ranked films here on the imdb, and i'm ticking of the remaining ones with every chance. most of those stand head and shoulders above this... excersize in absolute monotony.

i like to rate truly bad films (as in ones with no humour even in how bad they are) by how many people you need to watch it with to make it all the way through. if you can watch it by yourself, it isn't that bad. if you can watch it with one single friend... it's bad but could be a lot worse.

it took 5 of us to make it all the way through voodoo academy. and not even the usually fun moments of watching bad films (spotting the boom mic for example, 3 times in this one if i'm not mistaken) could take away the dry taste in my mouth. yes i'd watched it, but i'd also forced 4 of my friends to watch it with me to achieve that end.

i hope and pray we saw the directors cut... to think that there could be a version with 20 more minutes of big eyebrowed lugs with baby oil glands rubbing their torsos just scares the hell out of me. so much of the film centers around this.

i do applaud david decoteau for managing to lens this film in two days on a short budget, just as i applaud him for convincing people to pay him to make what is no doubt a celluloid version of some of his fetishes. but it isn't a good film. the original shop of horrors was shot in the same length of time for a comparitive amount of money (considering inflation) and was an utter gem. it's not an excuse for how bad this baby is.

spoilers ahead...

it's not even worth picking apart the plot holes or cliched know it all hero characters... the pacing of the film... is insane... nothing... is interesting for the length of time decoteau dedicates to the pectoral self massaging. no matter what your alignment or sex... rubbing just cannot sustain that kind of screen time.

the acting is cheese... but not overly amatuer... i've seen a lot worse in better films... but somehow it's the semi competent delivery of some of the worst lines you'll ever hear in a film, that really grates.

rent this if, like me, you have a fascination with the worst of the worst, and only if you're going to watch it with a group of people who are prepared to work to get through it. this is no ha ha ha the set wobbled affair. it's an endurance test you probably want to skip.

i'm sure there is worse... but i wouldn't be surprised if it has decoteau's name on it.

Sentiment: negative
Pressburger and Powell's greatest movie. David Niven plays the RAF bomber pilot who misses his own death but is granted a second chance at life when heaven notices that he is AWOL and dispatches an angel to investigate. The scene when the young soldiers, men and women, black and white, all killed in action, arrive in heaven to be processed for eternal life is unbearably poignant. Watch out too for Roger Livesey, a deeply under appreciated actor, and Kim Hunter as the love interest (later, of course, Zira in Planet of the Apes). Incidentally, Steven Spielberg cast the actress who played the chief angel (Kathleen Byron) as the elderly wife of the eponymous private in Saving Private Ryan half a century later, an act that speaks volumes for his cinematic literacy.

Sentiment: positive
Cyclone is a piece of dreck with little redeeming value, even on the so bad its entertaining front. A friend of mine took the tape from an overflowing St. Vincent DePaul clothes bin. Okay, that may be a little bit dodgy but it was meant to be a clothes bin, not a crappy old VHS bin, something the less fortunate members of our society don't really need to make their lives better. It could be considered a mercy. Watching a movie like Cyclone would really only add to their problems. Anyway the basic premise of a woman with a super-powerful motorcycle that it armed to the teeth with rockets and lasers isn't even properly exploited. The two 'high speed' chase sequences involve vehicles travelling at less than hair raising speeds of around 40 KMPH and a super-fast motorcycle that is in danger of being overtaken by a crappy old station wagon is not that awe inspiring when you get down to it. There is only one scene where the bikes goofy weaponry is used, at the film's climax, and it is laughably ineffectual, or just laughable, when it is. This includes laser beams that look like they should be coming out of the hands of an evil wizard in a cheesy eighties sword and sorcery that produced large bursts of flame which seem to have no noticeable effect on their targets even when they hit directly. The rest of the movie is just tedious hard to watch filler. Lots of bad actors, yes even Combs and Landau suck in this, most of whom seem like they have been lifted from the set of a porno movie stand around exchanging really bad dialogue in a desperate attempt to pus forward the barely coherent plot. There are a few badly staged fight sequences and some excruciatingly unfunny comic relief scenes with some cops and the owner of the motor cycle repair shop. Comedy of the sub Benny Hill horny old man can't stop staring at the female leads chest variety. Basically the 'money' scenes involving the bike actually doing stuff are few and lame and the rest is clunky filler material. Skip it.

Sentiment: negative
Mel Brooks has really outdone himself on this movie. No one can deny that Blazing Saddles was a classic, and a breakthrough in this style of comedy film, but Men In Tights has become the apex of his creative genius. This movie is a definite must-see. If you enjoy this movie, I would also recommend Space Balls and History Of The World. The same goes in reverse. If you have seen any of these movies, then Men In Tights should be next on your list.

Sentiment: positive
I wish I would have read more reviews and more opinions about this movie before I rented it. A waste of money. A waste of time. Very little dialog. The dialog was hard to understand in every way. The storyline and plot were both weak. The only thing that was nice at all was the cinematography.

The characters were interesting. At the same time you will spend so much time trying to figure things out, because of the lack of dialog, that you will be rewinding the movie a lot. 

Do not watch this movie. It was a mess and will leave you feeling like a mess.

You will say, what the heck was that, when the movie ends?

Sentiment: negative
What an unusual movie.

Absolutely no concessions are made to "Hollywood special effects" or entertainment. There is no background music, not special effects or enhanced sound.

Facial expressions are usually covered by thick beards and the Spanish language is a strange monotonic lilt that sounds the same whether in the midst of a battle or talking around a campfire.

I sort of viewed these movies (parts 1 and 2) as an educational experience, not really something to go and get entertained by. Its quite long and in places dull.

But I suspect that given the lack of any plot development, I don't think its very educational either.

Its also difficult to perceive any story from the movie dialogue - it would be a good idea to read up a little on the history so that you can understand the context of what is happening, since for some reason the director didn't see fit to inform the audience why Che's band was moving around the way they did - as a result there seem to be groups skulking around the woodland for no particular reason and getting shot at.

I would have loved to give this movie more stars for somehow generating more empathy with me and developing depth of character, but somehow all of the characters were still strangers to me at the end. The stars it gets are for realism and showing the hardships of guerrilla warfare.

Sentiment: negative
Lupin sets off for Morocco, looking for a legendary treasure. His only clue is an interesting jewel that an old man gave him. It's a nice different location for Lupin, with the desert and that hot exotic feel.

One interesting thing about this movie is that Jigen has a much smaller role than usual, generally being in a different place than Lupin. On one hand their classic dynamic together is missed, but it is a change of pace. Plus, this way, Lupin can focus on the ladies...

Fujiko rules in this. Throughout the entire feature she is seducing Lupin, and us viewers. Then there's Lara, the damsel of this particular tale, and she's quite likable. This one has more nudity than any other Lupin anime, which is a fun distinction to have.

There's a very entertaining effeminate ninja guy who's the best villain in this, and naturally he has some great fighting with Goemon, as well as some fun scenes with Fujiko. Inspector Zenigata of course is also on a warpath here, in fine form.

Pretty much, this is a smooth ride with Lupin. The plot is average and there are some slow spots, but all in all this movie is a real pleasure. Enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
Saw this as previous viewer by accident, I have watched it twice now. I thoroughly enjoyed it, no silly thought provoking messages just plain good fun entertainment, good songs, good characters and a just a feel good film Highly recommended to those of us that just like to enjoy films and not dissect them Great Fun for all the family here. I didn't realise Rosie Alvarez is played by Vanessa Williams, she is excellent and very sultry. The songs like One Boy and One last Kiss are really enjoyable to listen to and to tap your feet to Jason Alexander is the complete contrast to his character in Pretty Woman ans is very good. Tyne Daley still sticks in my mind from Cagney and Lacey and her voice and accent still had that remembrance in it. Overall I just loved it and will be looking to purchase it if it is available

Sentiment: positive
In some ways, The Wrath of Kriemhild surpasses Siegfried's Death, but it also loses some of that film's greatness. The plot of this one is more cohesive than the first, which is quite amazing. The second half of the actual poem is a lot sloppier and a lot harder to tread through, until, that is, you get to the climactic battle scenes; only the Iliad's are better. Lang and Harbou embellished the Huns. The poet-compiler of the Nibelungenlied didn't know a Hun from his right ball, and as a result they are, more or less, the same as the Burgundians in custom. For example, although the poet clearly describes Etzel as a heathen (which is Kriemhild's main concern as Rudiger tries to persuade her to marry him), when she gets to Hunland, the first thing she does is go to mass. The Huns here are clearly heathens; they're almost like caveman. The depiction of them is hilarious, especially Verbal, the jester, who has two marvelous scenes. Etzel's character has been given more weight. He is much more formidable. All he does is bemoan his fate in the original poem. Lang and Harbou are masterful at building suspense, especially at the banquet scene, which is intercut with Verbal's second performance to an amazing effect. However, as is the nature of this half of the poem, the film's amazing technical accomplishments are missing in this one, for the most part, except for a dazzling sequence where Etzel's hall burns down with the Nibelungs inside. The one thing I do have to object to is the way Harbou changes the ending. SPOILERS: in the poem, after Hildebrand captures Hagen and Gunther, they are imprisoned. Kriemhild visits Hagen in his cell and demands that he reveal where he has hidden the horde. He refuses and she herself decapitates her brother. When Hagen still refuses, she decapitates him. Hildebrand (or possibly Dietrich) is so disgusted that a woman would presume to murder a great warrior that he, in turn, decapitates her, calling her a "Devil Woman". Etzel, who is much weaker in the poem than he is here, says something silly like: "Ah me!" I can understand why they would want to keep a unity of time and place as Hildebrand brings them from the castle; to retain the prison settings of the two deaths would make the film very anticlimactic. I also understand why they didn't have Hildebrand kill Kriemhild: his character is much reduced here; his name is only mentioned once. But, to have Kriemhild kill herself, adopting Brynhild's death from the Icelandic sources, is just catering to the audience instead of challenging them. The point of the poem is that Kriemhild's wrath goes far beyond it should into the realm of pure evil. Here, we simply have her die for her lost love. It's not as interesting.

Sentiment: positive
Great movie. I thought it would never be as good as it was. Great special effects, great story, big laughs. It didn't take itself seriously, which is why I think it worked so well. Even the acting was surprisingly good. Overall a very funny and sometimes chilling story.

Sentiment: positive
Kazuo Komizu, who hasn't made one decent film, directed this "notorious" shocker and should be ashamed that it was a hit upon its Japanese release.

Yes, it does feature scenes of rape, gore and dismemberment, but so what? It has the style of a bad American porn film shot and badly photographed by Ed Powers ("Dirty Debutantes") and is incredibly slow.

It seems to have earned its notoriety based on its roster of anti-social acts.

There is a huge difference between this and horror that is well produced.

Just because someone likes their cinema a little wet does not mean they'll accept crap like this. On the contrary, that kind of fan (myself, for example) tolerates even less crap than the average punter out there because he's seen so much and has become overly discerning. It's a shame production companies don't realize that.

One reviewer here (ZombieKilla81) commented that the film's "near obsession with gang rape" is one of the factors that killed it. I disagree. The subject matter is never the issue. The issue is how that subject matter is treated. In ENTRAILS OF A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN, it is treated so unimaginatively that it is boring.

Personally, I like graphic depictions of psychopathic behavior (with an intriguing context) if the material is well directed, freshly photographed and aesthetically pleasing. This Nikkatsu horror/pink hybrid is woeful.

Sentiment: negative
Phil the Alien is one of those quirky films where the humour is based around the oddness of everything rather than actual punchlines.

At first it was very odd and pretty funny but as the movie progressed I didn't find the jokes or oddness funny anymore.

Its a low budget film (thats never a problem in itself), there were some pretty interesting characters, but eventually I just lost interest.

I imagine this film would appeal to a stoner who is currently partaking.

For something similar but better try "Brother from another planet"

Sentiment: negative
Engrossing drama of four men on a canoing weekend down a remote river. They are pacifist Ed (Jon Voight), adventurous, violent Lewis (Burt Reynolds), obnoxious Bobby (Ned Beatty) and nice guy Drew (Ronny Cox). The first 40 minute are great--there's the incredible dueling banjos sequence, interesting interplay among the characters and just stunning widescreen cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond. Then two hillbillies attack Ed and Bobby. One of them rapes Bobby...and the trip becomes a nightmare.

Just unbelievable. The scenery is incredibly beautiful yet this horrific violence is taking place. To be truthful, Beatty's rape has never bothered me--I'm very aware it's being faked despite the good acting. This movie also shows how the characters change--Ed has his pacifism tested, Lewis becomes weak, Bobby is violated by one of the people he mocked earlier on and Drew tries to keep himself sane. Direction by John Boorman is also very assured and the sounds of the forest and the river help the mood immensely.

The acting is mostly good. Voight is just OK in the lead--he's been better. Beatty is also just OK--but it is his debut film and he has guts for taking such a risky role. Cox is very good especially when things start falling apart. And Reynolds is just superb--one of his best acting jobs EVER! How this wasn't even nominated for an Academy Award escapes me. Also Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward are way too believable as the hillbillies.

A powerful film--NOT for children. Try to see an uncut version--the TV version is butchered. Also letter-boxed viewing is essential to capture the breathtaking images.

Sentiment: positive
Bill (Buddy Rogers) is sent to New York by his uncle (Richard Tucker) to experience life before he inherits $25million. His uncle has paid 3 women Jacqui (Kathryn Crawford), Maxine (Josephine Dunn) and Pauline (Carole Lombard) to chaperone him and ensure that he does not fall foul of gold-diggers. One such lady Cleo (Geneva Mitchell) turns up on the scene to the disapprovement of the women. We follow the tale as the girls are offered more money to appear in a show instead of their escorting role that they have agreed to carry out for the 3 months that Bill is in New York, while Bill meets with Cleo and another woman. At the end, love is in the air for Bill and one other .............

The picture quality and sound quality are poor in this film. The story is interspersed with musical numbers but the songs are bad and Kathryn Crawford has a terrible voice. Rogers isn't that good either. He's pleasant enough but only really comes to life when playing the drums or trombone. There is a very irritating character who plays a cab driver (Roscoe Karns) and the film is just dull.

Sentiment: negative
I have to ask myself, do movies like this get their support by people associated with the movie itself coming here and critiquing it? How can something so awful score this high? My parents went to see a lot of the more adult themed movies when we were kids, anything with an R in it until we were old enough. I only remember two films that had them saying yech! when they got home. This one, and "Catch-22".

The movie is comprised of bumbling physicians and staff in a filthy hospital, rambling narratives, and a pack of inner city people (who look like rejects from a 1970s Norman Lear sitcom) staging a protest. The worst part is the "murder mystery", a crazy old guy doing "God's work" by killing doctors and others. When he confesses, Scott and his girlfriend show little emotion. They only care about him getting out of there where he will "be safe and happy". A doctor that drops dead of a heart attack is faked as the man so he can get away. Oh, my, what a fun movie.

This movie didn't "make me think", chuckle, or have any other feeling other than "It must get better", but it never does. People wonder why it was a failure, no wonder here. I wonder how IMDb has enough members that think this movie is good. YECH.

Sentiment: negative
The most important thing about this movie is the brilliant performance by Daniel Day-Lewis and Hugh O'Conor as Christy Brown, guineas artist and fighter who despite of her physical condition overcame all the odds. As a person who did work with patients with cerebral palsy, I can assure you that their performance were shockingly convincing. The enormous support that Christy got form his family, low-income, working class Dubliners, encouraged him to do the impossible and this picture depicted this support brilliantly have not read the book, but the dialogs were written wisely to capture Christy Brown's witty arrogant personality. I do recommend this movie to everyone, especially to classic movie-lovers.

Sentiment: positive
When I began watching I thought I was watching some pro-Koresh amateur documentary. However, I had never seen 3/4 of the footage they used. They interviewed people saying that the FBI/ATF instigated all these things, which sounded so far fetched, but then followed in up with FBI video and testimony. I was amazed. The documentary followed up with the senate investigation after the fire, and after seeing the interview and video footage you will be shocked at how the Senate and Attorney General turn their backs on Davidians basically to cover up the aggression by the FBI/ATF. If you start watching this you must finish it. Otherwise you will think it is propaganda of something like that.

Sentiment: positive
The story is seen before, but that does'n matter if you can figure out to make a proper storyboard. It is clear that the director haven't spent his work on the storyboard. Alongside this, the cameraman spent far too much time leaning angles that do not match the message of the movie. The funniest is, however, if you take a look at the movie's website, you can read that it was on purpose that the director has chosen to make the film with bad camera angles. Because it remind us about hunting. But I have never heard of hunting with poor camera angles ;-) It will have 1 stars because the story is OK. It is a pity that Ti West, has not spent more time to review his story. It is as if the movie was more important than the planning. Because you have a camera does not mean you should make a movie right away... come. Everyone can make a movie, but not all will be just as good. So a word of advice to Ti West are: stop and labeling what you want. Use your time to start planning and not filming until everything has come down on a storyboard. You certainly have the ability and desire - so don't abuse your talent.

Sentiment: negative
I wanted to like this movie. But it falls apart in the middle. the whole premise is a good one and ties up nicely, but the middle runs off tangent. The people I watched with were getting annoyed while it ran off course, and hoping it would end sooner than it did. Another person actually fell asleep during the middle segment! I found myself day dreaming elsewhere during the Schtick parts that had nothing to do with the plot. I bought it for the eye candy and it delivered that well, but it lacks Pixar's writing and soul. I think kids 8 and under will enjoy the ride at face vaule, while missing the plot. People old enough to follow a plot will find it wonders too far to return quickly and easily. Edit out most of the middle section, make it 50 minutes and it would be a solid flick. I wish I had better things to say. But I don't

Sentiment: negative
Might contain possible spoilers (Not that anything in this film is new or will even mildly surprise you for that matter)

Why does Disney feel the need to recycle everything they ever made into oblivion? Sure it's cheaper for them, but after a while, wouldn't you think there overall quality and the way people think of them would drop off. House Of Villains is a despicable display of cartoon crossovers that make absolutely no sense at all. Some signs of the total disregard for previous films in this are: The voices don't even remotely match up and Iago is evil again (Since when?!) I know that these films are directly towards children but there was a time when all could enjoy Disney films. Even the movie's musical number (which had been Disney's specialty for years) stunk. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone even the very young. All I can is that if more of these movies of the same caliber are released, it's only a matter of time before some small animation studio surpasses Disney in overall quality.

Sentiment: negative
With all of the films of recent,dealing with the British Monarchy,is it really time for another? Answer:YOU BET! The Young Victoria is another contribution to the wave of cinema from Britain dealing with the Royal family. In this case,it deals with the early life of Princess Victoria,and events leading up to the Coronation of her becoming Queen of all England,as well as her romance & eventual wedding to Prince Albert. The film also deals with the tempestuous lives & careers of both England's Queen & Prince,as well as several other events that transpire (political turmoil,etc.). Emily Blunt plays a radiant Victoria in her youth,while Rupert Friend is her beloved & best friend,Prince Albert. The rest of the cast is rounded out with the likes of Miranda Richardson,as the Dutchess of Kent,and the always welcome on screen,Jim Broadbent as King William,as well as a cast of others that shine on screen. Jean Marc Vallee (C.R.A.Z.Y.,Loser Love),directs from a winning screenplay by Jullian Fellowes (Vanity Fair,Gosford Park,Separate Lies). I absolutely went out of my head over the film's visual look (by cinematographer Hagen Bogdansker),who gave each frame of film a painterly look (with the help of production designer,Patrice Vermette),as well as some tight editing (by Jill Bilcock & Matt Garner). What I also appreciated in Fellowes' script is the use of a game of Chess,as a metaphor for some of the film's political motivation (the characters in the film move about like the pieces on a Chess board). This is smart,well written,directed,filmed,edited & acted entertainment (and enlightenment)that makes for a well spent evening at the cinema. Rated PG by the MPAA for a few scenes of sensuality,some brief violence ( a little bloody,although nothing too gory),a rude outburst of language,and some on screen smoking

Sentiment: positive
Without a shadow of a doubt this is and probably will always be the worst film i have ever had the missfortune to see my whole life. Take 5 wooden actors who got thrown out of acting school because they were so wooden someone sat on them thinking they were a bench.

Then add a cheap camcorder. You know the old VHS types that cost £20 on ebay. Add a terrible story line with no effects and yes you have this film. What a shocker it was. They couldn't even save it by having a fit girl in it. She was fat and ugly and was the worst of all. I actually watched it all as i could not believe this crap ever got funded.

MISS AT ALL COSTS

Sentiment: negative
For reasons I cannot begin to fathom, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco) begins injecting wolf's blood into his dim-witted handyman, Petro (Glenn Strange). The result  Petro is transformed into a hideous (as hideous as someone with a bad wig and pointy teeth can be) killer beast. Dr. Cameron uses Petro to get his revenge against those in the scientific community who scoffed at and ridiculed his ideas (and why wouldn't they, Dr. Cameron's nuttier than a fruitcake).

Overall, The Mad Monster is one dull and poorly made Poverty Row thriller. There's really only one positive I can come up with to write about in The Mad Monster. George Zucco can be fun to watch as he plays the mad scientist about as well as anyone. His Dr. Cameron is a regular loony. He has no qualms about killing; he has entire conversations with people who aren't there; and, as with most mad scientists, he messes in "God's domain" (actually, I'm not sure anyone accuses him of this, but it fits). But beyond Zucco, there's nothing here to recommend. Everything else from the monster effects to the supporting cast to the music is plain old bad. There are far better examples of Poverty Row horror from the 1940s than The Mad Monster.

Sentiment: negative
Demi and Woody are married, but they're poor. They meet Robert Redford, and he's REALLY rich. He takes a fancy to Demi, and since he's a gambling man he makes the couple an "indecent proposal:" one million dollars for a night with the little woman.

At this point you need watch no more of the film because you can put the details together in your sleep. Of course Demi is going to accept the offer. If she doesn't there's no first half of the movie. Of course it will affect Demi and Woody's marriage. If it doesn't there's no second half of the movie. And of course everything will turn out okay by the time the credits roll. If it doesn't, there's no happy ending for the sake of box office.

The absolute best thing you can say about INDECENT PROPOSAL is that Demi Moore looks good in a black dress. As for the rest... The script is incompetent, the direction amateurish, the performances negligible. I suspect Redford, Moore, and Harrelson blush and change the subject every time the film is mentioned. Do them--and more importantly yourself--a favor. Unless some one offers you a million... Miss It!

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Sentiment: negative
"Serum" starts out with credits that are quite reminiscent of the "Re-animator" movies, and it owes a lot to them. The story is very similar; a mad doctor develops a serum that he believes will alleviate pain, sickness and death, but he's apparently not a big believer in clinical trials and so winds up with a brain-eating zombie on his hands in the person of his nephew. The zombie even looks like one of those from "Re-animator," and in fact some of the make-up effects in "Serum" aren't bad. Unfortunately, the script is pretty slow and unbelievable in quite a few places, resulting in a soap opera feel for most of the first 3/4 of the movie. For some reason, the director feels compelled to tell us the time of day every few minutes by flashing it in big white letters across the screen. I can't see why this was important, other than being an attempt to provide viewers with a sense of time passing; sometimes, that wouldn't be present otherwise as the plot plods along.

There are a number of moments that just don't add up here. For instance, one victim is bludgeoned with a sledge hammer, but when we see the victim's head up close, there's no sign of that trauma. In another scene, a character runs down a fully lit hospital corridor (we can see the circles of light on the floor, in fact) with a flashlight in hand, looking for all the world like he's walking in the dark... but a moment later a second character walks down the same fully-lit corridor without one. These are just a couple of examples; moments of what look like directorial or editorial sloppiness crop up quite frequently throughout the movie.

"Serum" is better in some ways than much of what goes straight-to-video as independent horror lately. In terms of technical items  sound and photography, for example  it's got a more polished look than a lot of what lands on a DVD. On the other hand, there's still a good deal of wooden acting (particularly by one of the lead characters, the mad scientist himself!) and nonsensical moments that have nothing to do with suspension of disbelief and everything to do with writing and continuity. Maybe these are things that the people involved with making this film will eventually get more experience with, though. One of the problems with low-budget independent horror lately is that the filmmakers often set out to remake more popular movies that had bigger budgets, and that almost never works out. It didn't in the case of "Serum," anyhow.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was a waste of time. It looks nice, pretty settings, nicely acted, appears earnest and seems to be leading somewhere so you stay tuned awaiting a meaningful payoff. It doesn't happen. 

It surprised me that so much effort could be put into a movie, it was clearly very professionally done, and have an outcome that seems nothing short of a b-movie.

Save your precious time and see a good french film like Les Visiteurs (funny), Jean de Florette or Manon of the Spring. I can't recall the language in Europa Europa, but that's another Great film--heavy but very worth viewing.

This film appears to promise a lot but delivers nothing.

Sentiment: negative
When a group of businessmen start dying in the presence of the mysterious Mr. Coulomb, FBI agent Dick Martin is assigned to the case. As the deaths continue to mount, Mr. Martin obviously isn't having much success. By the end of the movie, the strange truth is revealed, which I won't reveal here.

One of the other users commenting on this states "This is a Classic film and should be ENJOYED and not picked apart". I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with this opinion. It is "classic" only in that it is old, not in any sense pertaining to its quality. I've enjoyed a lot of low budget "B" movies from around this time period, but this isn't one of them.

The pacing is unbearably slow, the camera work is pretty bland, most of the acting is fairly wooden (even Lugosi isn't great in this one in my opinion) and the plot, while it has an interesting premise, seems to be thrown together in a very difficult to follow manner.

Sentiment: negative
This movie illustrates like no other the state of the Australian film industry and everything that's holding it back.

Awesome talent, outstanding performances (particularly by Victoria Hill), but a let down in practically every other way.

An "adaptation" of sorts, it brought nothing new to Macbeth (no, setting it in present-day Australia is not enough), and essentially, completely failed to justify its existence, apart from (let's face it, completely unnecessarily) paying homage to the original work. If there's one body of work that has been done (and done and done and done), it's Shakespeare's. So any adaptation, if it's not to be a self-indulgent and pointless exercise, needs to at least bring some new interpretation to the work.

And that's what this Macbeth fails to do. As it was done, this film has no contemporary relevance whatsoever. It's the same piece that we have seen countless (too many!) times before. Except with guns and in different outfits.

Apart from the fundamental blunder (no other way to put it) of keeping the original Shakespearian dialogue, one of the more cringeful moments of the movie is the prolonged and incredibly boring slow motion shoot out towards the end, during which I completely tuned out, even though I was looking at the screen. I never thought I had a short attention span, but there you go.

I suppose the movie succeeds on its own, very limited terms. But as Australia continues to produce world-class acting talent, its movie-makers need to stop being proud of succeeding on limited terms, and actually set high enough standards to show that they respect for the kind of acting talent they work with.

A shame. An absolute shame.

Sentiment: negative
I had never seen a film by John Cassavetes up until two years ago, when I first saw THE KILLING OF A Chinese BOOKIE in a Berlin cinema, which I found interesting, to put it diplomatically, but not so special, I instantly wanted to see more of his work. Since then, I tried - with an emphasis on tried - watching his other work, SHADOWS in particular. I must admit, it took me a a while before I actually enjoyed the film. At first the unpolished, raw and improvised way Cassavetes it was shot, put me off somewhat and I thought of it as an original - absolutely - but flawed and dated experiment. But now, upon reviewing, these little imperfections make it look so fresh, even today.

Shot on a minimal budget of $40,000 with a skeleton six person crew, SHADOWS offers an observation of the tensions and lives of three siblings in an African-American family in which two of the three siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers) and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni), are light-skinned and able to pass for white. Cassavetes demanded that the actors retain their real names to reflect the actual conflicts within the group but saw the film as being concerned with human problems as opposed imply to racial ones. Cassavetes shot the film in ten minute takes and jagged editing, a reaction against 'seamless' Hollywood production values. Cassavetes main inspiration - at least in the cinematic style the film was shot - were the Italian neo-realists whilst also professing admiration for Welles' pioneering spirit. The use of amateurs and improvisation might resemble some of the Italian neo-realist directors, but with his bebop score by Charles Mingus ans Shafi Hadi, the film feels very different, very American, unlike anything made before really. 

The song with the feathered girls, "I feel like a lolly-pop" (or something) feels like light years back to me, ancient history. But no matter how dated it might look, it still makes a delightful time capsule of late Fifties New York today. I think it's this is one of the first films made aspiring filmmakers realize they could shoot an independent film, without Hollywood, improvised and without a real budget. Seymour Cassel, who acted and was involved in SHADOWS, claims it was Jules Dassin's THE NAKED CITY (1948) that was the first and inspired them all, but I think this was the one that really opened the eyes of aspiring independent American filmmakers.

Camera Obscura --- 8/10

Sentiment: positive