DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Good: Engaging cinematic firefights, great presentation, vehicles are actually fun to drive, fairly appealing multiplayer, faithful to the movie, and the list goes on.

Bad: Main missions are a bit short.

This game defines what a "good" third person shooter(not necessarily a spy-game) is. Great firefights carry on the story and make you want to complete EVERY single mission through, and unlock all the genuine bonuses the game has to offer. The hype this game had, was lived up to, and I personally think you should buy it, and hook up with a couple of friends and play this one. Loads of fun. 

The sound in this game, is a rip-roaring achievement from a few previous bond games, and firing a weapon, really feels like you're firing a weapon. It ties in with the aspect that you are a deadly and ruthless spy.

All in all, this game makes you excited and satisfied after you make it through, and some multiplayer that can compete with the standards of the crafty James Bond "Nightfire" game for gamecube.

Sentiment: positive
Something I really love about this woman's short films was the elusiveness of theme -- especially in "Living with Happiness." This film has some nice beginnings -- unusual location and the potential for a strange cinematic treatment, but fails to succeed with clunky expositional dialogue, patchy performances and very television coverage.

It's once again charming television and very ordinary cinema. The ideas are so fleshed out that they almost feel pat like a television commercial. But the sentiment is good so we can't complain too much.

I really would love to see this director make a full length animation and try and work with a producer who doesn't demand so much boring clarity.

Sentiment: negative
Years have past since Alex Rain (played by Olivier Gruner in the first movie) stumbled onto the horrific plot that involved replacing humans with machines however since then a war between cyborgs and humans has emerged and we lost, now a superwoman of sorts who is the daughter of Olivier Gruner's character (She also inherits only half of his minimal acting ability) which I think is the films minimal connection to the first, however when the superwoman is created she hides in 1980 while a bounty hunter from the future hunts her down in this confusing sci-fi clunker. Nemesis became a cult hit, that I can see why people liked even though I was no fan of said film. Nemesis tried very ambitiously to come up with different ideas, develop a beautiful look and provide tons of action, it almost worked. Nemesis 2 doesn't even have that ambition, it's a cheap rip off of The Terminator with a muscled female who is so low on acting ability she makes Olivier Gruner seem like a master thespian and the action sequences lack the explosive scope that was the main selling point of the original. I'll admit I was no fan of the original but it deserved a better follow up than this. The original also featured a good cast like Tim Thomerson, Cary Hiroyuki Tagawa, Thom Mathews, Brion James, Thomas Jane and yes Jackie Earle Haley this one features nobody and this time it's just a dull movie with a pretentious vibe. In fact after I saw this, it inspired to add a half star to the original.

* out of 4-(Bad)

Sentiment: negative
Wow, it's been years since I last saw this movie. Watching it in 2008 is certainly different than watching it in 1986. Initially I didn't' think I would make it through the movie. Hunt Stevenson (Michael Keaton) was so obnoxious, arrogant and disrespectful that I found it hard to watch him. He embodied every negative stereotype of Americans. If that wasn't bad enough, once the small American town's finest workers were shown the image only got worse. On the opposite spectrum the Japanese were presented as emotionless, robotic workaholics. The movie wasn't even all that funny, I only hung in there because of the nostalgic value of it. And I'm glad I continued the watch.

Just like boxing, judges are swayed by how you finish the round. This movie went from about a three up to the seven I rated it because of the ending. The end was excellent. You always want a harmonious ending and this was just that. It was great that the town got to keep there jobs and keep the factory, but what was most special was the marriage between the Japanese customs and values and the American customs and values. It was a mediocre movie that ended on a high note.

Sentiment: positive
Normally, I have no problem with a movie or story with an ending that leaves you wondering to puzzle out what really happened, when it's done on purpose...

But this movie really feels like they got all but the last 15 minutes done, then realized they had $5 left to finish on...

I saw it on TBS... I recommend you not spend money on it either. If you catch it on TV, watch all but the last 15 minutes, then walk away and make your own ending in your mind.

Really, the movie would have been better if they had simply got away, and come back with the State Poice of Feds only to find that the town and the car graveyard was gone, and by all appearances had never been there...

"Wish I had more thumbs, so I could give that movie 4 thumbs down!"

Sentiment: negative
I think the romance of this movie helps couples develop a deeper appreciation for each other. Although I saw one goof in the early part of the movie, it was fairly well done. The plot can make you cry if you think about the situation enough. I loved it..watched it twice already and highly recommend it!

Sentiment: positive
There's a unique place in the pantheon of John Ford films for Wagonmaster, Sergeant Rutledge, and The Sun Shines Bright. It was these three films with no box office names in them that Ford didn't have to tailor the film around the persona of a star being it John Wayne, Henry Fonda, or any of the others he worked with. Not surprising that Ford considered all these as favorites of one kind or another. 

Ben Johnson and Harry Carey, Jr. a couple of likable cowpokes sign on to guide a Mormon wagon train to a valley in Arizona territory. Along the way they are joined first by a group stranded players from a medicine show and then by a family of outlaws on the run named Clegg. Their stories merge and what happens is the basis of the film's plot.

Had Wagonmaster been done even 10 years earlier on the strength of the two performances turned in by Johnson and Carey, both probably would have had substantial careers as B picture cowboys. In the case of Johnson it would have been art imitating life. Johnson was a real rodeo cowboy and came to Hollywood with a string of horses for John Ford to use in Fort Apache. Ford was struck by his presence and the rest is history. 

But the day of the B western was drawing to a close and Johnson and Carey had great careers as two fine character actors.

Ward Bond plays Elder Wiggs leader of the Mormons. Bond is a recent convert though and has trouble remembering to not use some four letter words. But he's the leader because of his strength of character, not his impeccable LDS theology. He turns out to be a wise and compassionate leader.

In portraying the Cleggs, Ford only had to reach back four years to his My Darling Clementine. They are the reincarnation of the Clanton gang and pure evil. In fact if Walter Brennan who after My Darling Clementine refused to ever work for Ford again was willing I could easily see him being cast as Shiloh Clegg the head of the family. As it was Charles Kemper did a fine job, this is probably the role he's most noted for. Shortly after this film was done, Kemper was killed in automobile crash. He might very well have worked for Ford in the future.

Ford makes the Mormons pacifists here and I don't recall that pacifism was part of LDS doctrine. Nevertheless it works here, the whole idea being that these people who carry no weapons are innocents when dealing with evil people like the Cleggs. It takes some gun toting cowboys to properly dispose of them. I think that this post World War II film is trying to say that pacifism isn't always the best policy. 

Another carryover from My Darling Clementine is Alan Mowbray playing the same kind of role he did there as head of the medicine show troupe. Part of that troupe is Joanne Dru who's doing another turn as a woman of elastic virtue the same as she did in Red River. Dru used to do so many westerns that she longed to be out of gingham and into some modern fashions.

Wagonmaster is great entertainment and I'm willing to wager in the state of Utah it's a pretty popular film.

Sentiment: positive
"Holly" is an issue-driven film, but it is neither manipulative nor overly sentimental. At its heart is it is a character-driven film, which wouldn't be nearly so successful without the fleshed-out portrayals of Patrick (Ron Livingston), the lost soul with the gradually awakening conscience, and Holly (Thuy Nguyen), the strong-willed but ultimately over-matched young Vietnamese girl. From the vibrant locations and photography to the effective editing, everything is forthright and well-done. The contemporary classical score may put some off at first, but it is top-notch composition and underscores the admirable restraint which is evident throughout. This film, which raises many issues but provides few clear-cut answers, ultimately succeeds in raising awareness of and compassion for Holly and the many who share her plight. Kudos to those who managed to get it made.

Sentiment: positive
I can see that the ratings for this film aren't all that high for this film, so I must be in the minority for liking this film so much. Well, I am right and everyone else is wrong (just kidding). I guess I like it because I am a psychology teacher and I really liked the brooding character played by Ryan. While he truly is dangerous as well as VERY menacing, you can't exactly hate him because he is clearly mentally ill and probably suffering from some sort of brain trauma. And wow did Ryan do a really good job portraying this man! You really find yourself feeling for Ida Lupino as he destroys her life. So with such intense acting and menace, why is the movie rated relatively low? Well, probably because it isn't exactly believable,...but boy is it entertaining and creative. Give it a try and don't believe the score of 6.4--it's a lot better than that!

Sentiment: positive
I have to confess right off that I have never been a fan of Rodney Dangerfield. Indeed, from me he gets "no respect." I watched this only because my wife wanted to see it, and found exactly what I expected: a stupid story without any real humour. It's full of lame, crude jokes and a totally ridiculous plot revolving around a developer's (Dangerfield) plans to build a ski resort in Utah that just didn't capture my attention at all.

In addition to Dangerfield the film starred a weak cast, including the likes of Andrew Dice Clay and the totally over the hill John Byner (I didn't even know he was still around until I saw his name in the credits for this.)

This truly is a Dangerfield disaster.

2/10

Sentiment: negative
Being a fan of cheesy horror movies, I saw this in my video shop and thought I would give it a try. Now that I've seen it I wish it upon no living soul on the planet. I get my movie rentals for free, and I feel that I didn't get my moneys worth. I've seen some bad cheesy horror movies in my time, hell I'm a fan of them, but this was just an insult.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was absolutely pathetic. A pitiful screenplay and lack of any story just left me watching three losers drool over bikini babes. At times I felt like I was watching an episode of Beavis and Butthead. I couldn't even sit through the whole movie. Emran Hashmi disappoints, and Hrshitta Bhatt is not impressive at all. Celina Jaitley was not bad. The only worthwhile part of the film is the spoof on Anu Malik and his obsession of shayaris. It was pretty hilarious. The songs "Sini Ne" and its remix version were really good. You can always count on Emran lip-locking and lip-synching a chartbuster. All in all, it seems Emran doesn't have a good script from the Bhatts to back him up this time.

Sentiment: negative
Bangville Police supposedly marked the debut of the Keystone Kops, named after the studio they worked for. In this one, however, they don't dress in the silly cop costumes or drive the fast-paced car that's their trademark. Anyway, Mabel Normand is a farm girl here who's begged her dad for a calf. She later sees some strange men in the barn and quickly calls the police. One answers and the chase is on. Next, Mabel slams her door just as someone is coming in. Turns out it's her mother who jumps to the conclusion robbers are in there! So while Mabel blocks her door with furniture, the mother and father try to fight their way in! This was perhaps the most amusing part of the short along with some explosions of the cop car. This was a short 7 minutes that went by so fast it's over before it's begun. The only real characterization that's developed is Mabel's who exudes charm with just her face and big eyes and seems so optimistically cheery here except, of course, when she's frightened. It's easy to see why she became a star. It's largely because of her that I'd recommended seeing this at least once and why I'm giving this a 4.

Sentiment: negative
It is an excellent thriller from Turkey which can make sense.Great job from Gokbakar brothers.

First of all,i want to point on screen play.Generally screen play in most films from Turkey is not enough,but GEN has the best shots to be said "perfect".And also transition parts are really excellent.

On the other hand,"Gen" has a great topic that influence everyone.Especially,a woman ,who wants to be a psyciatrist in a sanitarium ,has a mother that is a habitual insanity.Principal causes and psychological consequences are given in Gen.The only thing you have to do is to combine all the hints.

There is an impressive aggression part Doga Rutkay and Sahan Gokbakar played.This performance may be more realistic than " Irréversible(Monica Bellucci) ".

The last thing i want to say is "Watch this movie,you'll get confused"

Sentiment: positive
If you like bad movies, this is the one to see. It's incredibly low-budget special effects (you'll see what I mean) and use of non-actors was what gave this film it's charm. If you're bored with a group of friends, I highly recommend renting this B movie gem. It's mulletrific!

Sentiment: negative
After Chaplin made one of his best films: Dough & Dynamite, he made one of his worst: Gentlemen Of Nerve. During this first year in films, Chaplin made about a third of all his films. Many of them were experimental in terms of ad-libbing, editing, gags, location shooting, etc. This one takes place at a racetrack where Chaplin and his friend try to get in without paying. Mabel Normand is there with her friend also, and Chaplin manages to rid himself of both his and Mabel's friends. He then woos Mabel in the grandstand with no apparent repercussions from his behavior. Lots of slapstick in here, but there is very little else to recommend this film for other then watching Chaplin develop. The print I saw was badly deteriorated, which may have affected its enjoyment. Charley Chase can be glimpsed. * of 4 stars.

Sentiment: negative
I bought a tape of this film based on the recommendation of other IMDb users and have to say that I was very disappointed. I'm a college professor and showed this movie to my class; they unanimously voted that it's a terrible film. I guess that if you like the old Dark Shadows series, then maybe you'll like this. (I liked Dark Shadows when I was a kid in the '70s, but now I think it's just awful). The first half hour or so at least has the virtue of some fidelity to Wilde's novel. After that, the story veers wildly off course, at least as compared with the 1945 MGM version (which won two Oscars). Nigel Davenport as Lord Henry is really about the only thing watchable in the whole production. A lot of the other acting is bad, the music is melodramatic, and look of the film is terrible. Actually, it's not a film at all--it was obviously shot on video and has that characteristically claustrophobic BBC look about it. The opening scenes are particularly poorly lit, the women's costumes are terrible (the men look all right), and a lot of the characters--including Dorian--seem to have 1970s rather than Victorian hairstyles. The movie does well to include a lot of Wilde's dialog, but the voice-over narration in the voice of Dorian contains a lot of rubbish that directly contradicts Wilde's character. I'm a big Oscar Wilde fan, and I fear that he must have rolled over violently in his grave when this monstrosity was made. Its only improvement over the 1945 version is that the homosexual subtext is definitely more apparent, without being heavy-handed. I haven't seen either of the more recent versions, but if one is interested in seeing the story well told, I would have to recommend the 1945 MGM black-and-white over this one.

Sentiment: negative
The best thing about Shrieker is the dialogue. Like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie is cognizant of the conventions of this type of horror movie and manages to come up with a few good lines and scenes that play on those conventions. Unfortunately, Shrieker is just boring. The plot is your basic Ten Little Indians whodunnit with a monster controlled by one of the suspects/victims. You know from the beginning that each of the characters will get bumped off until only the hero(ine) is left to defeat the evil. And this is exactly what happens. Absolutely no surprises and no tension. Production values and acting were ok, but I had no motivation to watch to the end (although I did) because I already knew how the end scene would play out. The ending did surprise me a bit, because it managed to fizzle out, literally, instead of throwing out a bucket of special effects. Maybe the special effects budget had been spent up by the end.

Sentiment: negative
This is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Dolph Lundgren, however Alex Karzis is awful as the villain!. The story is very good, and i found the kids to be likable for the most part, plus Dolph Lundgren is simply amazing in this!. The action scenes are excellent, and it's almost like Die Hard except it's set in a school!, plus Kata Dobó is very menacing and sexy as the sidekick!. The finale is very exciting, and it has a couple of cool emotional moments as well!, however i just wished it had another villain, because Alex Karzis just didn't cut it as the villain way too OTT, and laughable for my tastes. This should be higher then 4.1 in my opinion, as i thought it was a great action film, and while the kids, were very stupid at times, they got quite resourceful as the movie went along!, plus the shootouts were pretty cool as well!. The ending is very amusing,and Corey Sevier's character was my favorite student!, plus Dolph has still got it!. This is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Lundgren!, but Alex Karzis is awful as the villain, still i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Sidney J. Furie does a very good job here with great camera work, good angles, and keeping the film at a very fast pace!. There is a bit of blood and violence. We get lots of extremely bloody gunshot wounds,knife in the side of the head, bloody arrow hits, an impaling, and other minor stuff. The Acting is fantastic!. Dolph Lundgren is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, kicks that ass as usual, had great chemistry with the kids, had an awesome character, is very charismatic, and he may not have shown a great emotional rage, he still was a hell of a lot of fun to watch!, he is one of my favorite actors! (Lundgren Rules!!!!!). Alex Karzis is god awful as the villain, he is laughably OTT, was boring, and not menacing at all, he also annoyed the crap out of me. Kata Dobó is very sexy as the side kick and did fine with what she had to do, she was the real villain in my opinion!. Corey Sevier is funny as Mick, he was my favorite student, and i really started to warm up to him in the 2nd half, i liked him a lot!, he had good chemistry with Dolph too. Dov Tiefenbach(Willy),Chris Collins(Hogie),Mpho Koaho(Jay Tee),Danielle Hampton(Alicia),Nicole Dicker(Charlee) all do great as the students. Jennifer Baxter is very cute and is good as The fiancée. rest of the cast do fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5

Sentiment: positive
Not even Goebbels could have pulled off a propaganda stunt like what Gore has done with this complete piece of fiction. This is a study in how numbers and statistics can be spun to say whatever you have predetermined them to say. The "scientists" Gore says have signed onto the validity of global warming include social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists. Would you say a meteorologist is an expert in neuro-surgery? The field research and data analysis geologists are involved in do not support Gores alarmist claims of global warming. As one of those geologists working in the field for the last 40 years I have not seen any evidence to support global warming. My analysis of this movie and Gores actions over the last couple years brings me to the conclusion that global warming is his way of staying important and relevant. No more, no less. Ask any global warming alarmist or "journalist" one simple question- You say global warming is a major problem. Tell me. What temperature is the Earth supposed to be?

Sentiment: negative
A number of posters have commented on the unsatisfactory conclusion. This is always a problem with long, complex dramas. Crime is essentially banal, so the pay off is always anti-climactic, whilst detailed exposition detracts from the human drama. The writer has used a number of clever devices to try and get round this, but has not been entirely successful. Answers to precisely what happened and why may have been supplied, but if so they are well buried. The viewer inevitably feels a little cheated.

But in a sense this is unimportant. The drama was never about the crime, or even the investigation, it was about the impact of events on the lives of those involved; the family, the investigators, the witnesses, the press. And as such it was gripping. The writing was a significant cut above the run of the mill for prime-time drama, and the performances uniformly good. In an ensemble piece it is invidious to focus on individuals, but Penelope Wilton deserves special mention for an extraordinary tour de force as the mother-wife-daughter, and Janet McTeer was in cracking form as a hard-bitten old cop.

One of the most interesting aspects of the drama is the handling of race, as the elephant in the room that no-one is prepared to mention. Subtle, powerful stuff.

Sentiment: positive
I liked this movie very much because it is a true story set in the Amazon, a part of the world that always has intrigued me. I believe a condensed form of the book was published in "Reader's Digest" soon after the actual event occurred.

Because I am a "baby boomer," the character and the actress are my contemporaries, and for this reason I related to the film. I also believe the movie is valuable for teaching survival skills if the viewer observes the character's following the streams that lead to the river and to the coastal settlements where she can get help, as well as other survival techniques. Most important was her will to survive and to maintain a positive attitude. In conclusion, I hope viewers learn something from it, in addition seeing it for entertainment.

I do wish the movie would be released in VHS and DVD soon as I should like to add it to my video collection. It also should be shown more often on the satellite movie channels.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film for one reason: the tagline is "Upset the head and you're dead!" Cracking. It's not surprising that this silly horror comedy runs out of steam before the tape is out of the box, but it wrings a few laughs from its oddball premise and cast of characters: an eagle-eyed human radar, a huge strongman, and a big-breasted sexual magnet are all mind-controlled by a huge head in a chair, who's not happy about his family being blackmailed by a murderous scumbag. This looks like being a promising mixture of ham and cheese before it becomes clear that the characters are one joke wonders and the plot is pretty ordinary if you, erm, ignore the giant head.

Sentiment: negative
Watching this again recently, I found it heartwarming to see the way they sincerely tried to bring the book to the screen, even if the shoestring budget and hammy actors meant inevitable failure. By any objective measure this was a disaster, but I found it easy to imagination how good a Lord of the Rings movie could be if someone was to make one sincerely - and with the money to employ the most talented artists and script writers. Unfortunately, thanks to Jackson, that will not be possible for a long time.

Watching this movie left me with the impression that with any sort of budget at all, then this story simply couldn't be stuffed up. Fantasy just provides so many opportunities for making an interesting film. There were many moments in this film that were potentially more interesting than the way that Peter Jackson did it, although of course you always have to use your imagination due to the poor execution. The way they tried to show the wraith world from Frodo's point of view for example. Or the way that Galadriel showed Sam what was happening back home for another.

Another thing I really appreciated in this version - the silent moments. There were moments when dialog was spoken with no background music against a still back-drop. Compare that to the grandiose swooping camera of the Jackson films, and the intrusive score which seemed designed to stress how each and every scene was the most poignant and powerful scene we had ever watched. Jackson's films were full of their own importance, this was quieter and a lot more modest.

Jackson and co hit this with more than US$270 million dollars in production costs, at least $90 million dollars more for marketing, a massive tax break from the NZ government, and also gained massive savings from filming in NZ not the USA. However, despite the marketing claims, the intention to be faithful was never there. This is well documented. Philippa Boyens said as much in an interview, when she said they deliberately didn't re-read the books before writing the script. Jackson also stated that they originally intended to make a fantasy film "along the lines of" the lord of the rings, and that the one he really wanted to do was Return of the King, because it had a lot of battles but no character development.

In contrast, this film tried to be more true. Of course a lot of things were wrong, the acting was awful and pretty much sunk everything, and the pace was too fast. Naturally they cut a lot, and adapted other scenes, and for this they deserve credit. While Jackson added a lot of action scenes that served no plot purpose, Bakshi cut book scenes which did nothing to advance the plot anyway. There's actually a curious similarity between the structure of the Jackson and Bakshi films near the beginning - in that they both deviate from the original books in the same way - although of course some of this could be coincidence.

This was not a good film, but the potential was there. Bakshi said in an interview to the Onion AV club that only animation could do the lord of the rings justice. His version didn't work, but he might have been right.

Sentiment: negative
"This story is dedicated to women," according to the introduction, "who have been fighting for their rights ever since Adam and Eve started the loose-leaf system." When "Politics" was filmed, the Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote, was only a decade old. And, the film deals with the wielding of political power by women as a voting group. Advocating prohibition, and shutting down speakeasies, was a main concern for women at the time.

Good-natured Marie Dressler (as Hattie Burns) becomes politically active, after a young woman is shot and killed coming out of a speakeasy. She wants the liquor-selling joints closed; and, is drafted into a Mayoral run, after delivering a powerful speech at a women's rally. Ms. Dressler is supported by her tenants, best friend Polly Moran (as Ivy Higgins) and her stuttering husband Roscoe Ates (as Peter Higgins). Dressler's run for Mayor of Lake City draws opposition from men in town; so, Dressler orders the women to go on strike, denying them, "everything" in the "parlor, bedroom, and bath." 

The film sounds much better than it turned out. The humor, frankly, isn't too good; and, it features some unfunny and moderately offensive situations ("You look like Madame Queen" refers to an Amos and Andy character). And, the mixing of shootings and slapstick doesn't mix well, this time. Producers might have considered making the film more dramatic, focusing exclusively on Dressler and the characters played by William Bakewell (as Benny Emerson) and Karen Morley (as Myrtle Burns).

**** Politics (7/25/31) Charles Reisner ~ Marie Dressler, Polly Moran, Roscoe Ates

Sentiment: negative
Cartoon-like special effects, horrible acting and dialogue, and dry plot! This movie has it all! My friend and I went to blockbuster to find a horrible movie that we could make fun of, but this was just too much. The movie begins with a women and her son vacationing on a made-up island in the Bahama region. The women, who just happens to be a doctor/virologist is in the area when a man collapses. He has a strange wound on his arm, and she immediately knows that it is a contagious virus. The story goes on to show startlingly fast romance between the two teenage leads (this is justified by the girl saying "I know it's fast, but it just feels nice." ????) Anyway the entire island gets infected with this virus and the CDC is brought in. We are told that within three months, if the virus is not treated and contained that it will spread to the united states and kill millions of people. This information does not stop the CDC from leaving the island to save themselves. Thankfully the cure to this horrible virus is found just in time, and the entire island is saved. To celebrate the death of there loved ones, the island people have a smashing party where everyone is dancing, having fun, and forgetting about the horrible epidemic that just occurred.

Sentiment: negative
**Possible Spoilers Ahead**

Gerald Mohr, a busy B-movie actor during the Forties and Fifties, leads an expedition to Mars. Before we get to the Red Planet we're entertained by romantic patter between Mohr and scientist Nora Hayden; resident doofus Jack Kruschen; and the sight of Les Tremayne as another scientist sporting a billy-goat beard. The Martian exteriors feature fake backdrops and tints ranging from red to pink-the "Cinemagic" process touted in the ads. Real cool monsters include a giant amoeba, a three-eyed insect creature, an oversized Venus Fly-Trap, and the unforgettable rat/bat/spider. The whole bizarre adventure is recalled by survivor Hayden under the influence of hypnotic drugs. THE ANGRY RED PLANET reportedly has quite a cult following, and it probably picked up most of its adherents during the psychedelic Sixties.

Sentiment: negative
After receiving a DVD of this with a Sunday newspaper, I hoped that it was not the usual duff films that are given away because no one would ever buy them. I was wrong. Sheens acting is on par with that of a ten year old in a school pantomime production and the same goes for the majority of the cast. Neill is satisfactory, but plays a Russian and isn't helped by his hybrid Northern Irish/New Zealand accent, and nor are the rest of the KGB characters, all of whom sound like they're in a Cambridge Footlights reunion. In fact, the only people with genuine accents are extras who supply an odd word here and there, helpfully letting us know at least where the hell everything is going on in what is otherwise a complete mash. The "espionage" factor is unimpressive for the most part and primarily consists of Sheen faffing about in various ridiculous disguises whilst trying to blend into the background, quickly becoming not only boring but laughable. The plot has potential but is completely murdered by the rest of the confusing production elements. This could have been so much better.

Sentiment: negative
There are some things I will never understand; why underwear comes in packs of threes when clearly thats not enough is an example. Similarly, I will never understand this film, and that is brilliant. If you approach this film expecting an actual movie, you might as well be approaching Satan expecting a hug; although that may well be possible if you greet this film's Satanic figures. Take Pitch for instance; the most ineffectual, camp, unhellish portrayal of a devil since Freddy Mercury and Wayne Sleep joined forces to create a ten foot Satan costume from red body paint and horns covered with condoms. However, it does create some of the most hilarious moments of any film ever. Seriously, this is no understatement. The same can be applied to every other character, bar the little girl who acts so sickly innocent she's probably overcompensating for some serious crime she's part of. Then again, if Santa's inter-space recon station is real, there is no chance she could have avoided him this long. Put simply, if you haven't seen this movie, you cannot consider yourself a serious buff. The achingly funny characterisation, acting, concept, and almost-under-the-radar racism makes this a must see above any film to date (if you're after pure laughter that is).

Sentiment: positive
An original uncensored print of this amazing film was discovered in 2004 in the Library of Congress, and has been shown in a few specialized theaters around the world in 2005. According to current reviews that I've found online, the original has all of the nastiest dialog and innuendos intact; they were later either removed or completely re-shot by the studio prior to initial release, in order to pass the New York state censors. I have also read that a DVD is "expected in 2006" and one can only hope! If we're really luckily, it will include comparisons between the 2 versions. Note that the released censored version was originally available on Laserdisc, which I have seen. Stanwyck rules!

Sentiment: positive
This reworking of Anthony Shaffer's classic play did not last long in cinemas. Having recently suffered through it on cable, I still congratulate myself for not wasting money on a ticket. Director Kenneth Branagh, writer Harold Pinter, and star/producer Jude Law deluded themselves that their prestige alone could sustain this travesty through an interminable 93 minutes, without the fun or class of the longer original.

Michael Caine enhanced his reputation playing the second lead in the marvelous 1972 film. He now seems intent on destroying it by attempting the lead, played in that version by Laurence Olivier. (Both were nominated for Best Actor Oscars, but lost to Marlon Brando in THE GODFATHER.) Looking puffy and washed-out, Caine glides through the part with less depth than he displays as Batman's butler. He had already lowered himself to a guest appearance in the atrocious remake of GET CARTER. What's next -- ALFIE II, or SON OF THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING? 

But then, no one benefits from this inane adaptation by Pinter, who thinks that frequent cursing and an added sexual angle can compensate for the absence of Shaffer's witty character interplay. Branagh's direction relies on bluish lighting and a soulless set design that wouldn't hold up in a second-rate nightclub. Neither the shadows nor the tight, overacted close-ups can help Law overcome his dull screen persona. The result is a failure both as straight drama and as detective thriller, almost making you forget the purpose behind the title.

Fans of the original stage production (with Anthony Quayle and Keith Baxter) and the Olivier/Caine film would do well to regard this enterprise as a bad dream. The late Mr Shaffer, who wrote the 1972 screenplay, as well as Hitchcock's FRENZY and several Agatha Christie adaptations, must be turning in his grave, wishing he could plan a real murder or two!

Sentiment: negative
I am only 11 years old but I discovered Full House when I was about five and watched it constantly until I was seven. Then I grew older and figured Full House could wait and that I had "more important" things to do. Plus there was also the fact that my younger brother who watched it faithfully with me for those two years started to dislike it thinking it too "girly." 

Then I realized every afternoon at five it was on 23 and I once again became addicted to it. Full House has made me laugh and cry. It's made me realize how nice it would be if our world was like the world of Full House plus a mom. I have heard people say Full House is cheesy and unbelievable. But look at the big picture: three girls whose mom was killed by a drunk driver. The sisters fight and get their feelings hurt. The three men who live with the girls can get into bickers at times. What's any more real than that? 

If anything the show has lifted me up when I'm down and brought me up even higher when I thought I was at the point of complete happiness. I have howled like a hyena at the show and gained a massive obsessiveness over Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. (Of course Hilary Duff has now taken that spot but they were literally the cutest babies I have ever seen. They are great actresses and seem to be very nice people.)

Sentiment: positive
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Yes, I know I'm not the target audience. Target audience is females, either college age or middle aged or any aged I guess. I'm none of these so the makers don't mind if I don't like it. But that won't excuse the fact that the dialogue and the plot are horrible. The main character, Phoebe, goes on a journey to Europe to find out what happened to her sister, Faith, who committed suicide. Phoebe is an inane character that i hope no one identifies with. Faith is also a character with very little believability. Wolf is the only person who seems to be somewhat reasonable. As I said the dialogue is boring and uninteresting. The plot does completely stupid things at times. The absolute worst is that Phoebe and Faith's father is an artist but his paintings are completely dreadful. There is nothing new, interesting or refreshing in this movie. If your a guy, you will pray for the ending. If your a chick you might be able to sit through it but you will be unimpressed.

Sentiment: negative
I thought that One Dark Night was great! It deserves a 10! As to a statement made by one user, the dead WERE actually zombies in this movie. A dead person brought back to life IS a zombie, regardless of the method or cause for/of being brought back to life. The "zombies" in this movie are used to frighten the girls, not to feed off of them, like traditional zombies. This movie is a definite star among horror flicks of the 80's. The score and atmosphere are quite eerie, and the audience is kept in suspense throughout the mausoleum scenes. The acting is actually convincing, with genuine expressions of horror at the sight of the undead. Although I enjoy all zombie flicks, this movie is a refreshing change from the typical "flesh-eating zombie" movie.

Sentiment: positive
Was this meant to be a comedy or a serious drama? This film starts with a light-hearted banter between three women. Fine. It moves into a conflict between the women when one of them meets a man. Fine. There are a few antics between them. Fine. But when the plot thickens and finally becomes black I started to wonder whether I had misinterpreted the first part of the movie. It continues in this vein for a while until, in the end, it tries to go back to the original light-hearted banter. But by now it's too late. It's hard to see why these women would still be talking to one another and the finale is unconvincing. Truly a lesson (for British filmmakers anyway) of how not to make films. Difficult to see how the producers ever convinced themselves this film would work. And the box office proved it to be a real flop, because I'd never heard of this film until this weekend (four years after its release).

Sentiment: negative
I'll say this to begin with:...Why, oh why, can't WB do what these short film directors do? Sandy is obviously an amazing Director, and deserves some credit from WB and DC. But I guess they're kinda put on edge when a man with a $12,000 budget can make a super-hero fan drool. The World's Finest is one of the best short films I've ever seen, Trailer or not.

I think choosing a Bodybuilder(Mike O'Hearn) to play Superman was a genius choice. Let's face it people, Superman is no super-model. He may be handsome, but a GQ Stud he is not. And I don't know what that guy a few comments above me was on, but Superman is actually pretty beefy(Have you ever actually read a Superman comic?). I Guess that fact alone just floors me...It seems like such an obvious choice to get someone with some actual muscle-mass to play a Super-hero, rather than a pretty-face. Same Thing for Batman, Bartram is in incredible shape, and an excellent Batman...I don't know guys...If given a bigger budget, and his own movie...I think Bale and Bartram would be Neck and Neck. Bottom line, This is one of only a scant few of Super-Hero movies with actors that actually LOOK the part.

The Acting is pretty nice as well. I don't know what every one is talking about, O'Hearn isn't that bad. He's damn convincing as Superman, and Bartram...Well, he IS Batman. I mean, come on people, this movie had a $12,000 dollar budget, what were you expecting?. Everyone Else is great too, except Two-Face seems a tad crazier than usual...But hey, we only have Tommy-Lee Jones as a reference. Oh, Lois is pretty hot too.

The SFX are flippin' sweet too. I mean, Seeing Superman lift the car up...MAN!, how cool is that. Versus the "Tank" scene in Grayson, I may have to put this one above that, since Mike actually looks like he's flying, and with ease. The Flying sequences left something to be desired, but once again, with a bigger budget...Oh, And he even used a Batmobile!(It was probably a Model, but it looked damned convincing).

All in all, this trailer's only downfall was a lack of a serious budget. And WB refuses to admit that Collora is a credible Director, and NEEDS to be apart of some kind a Project...But no, they'll(Like most of the Marvel projects) just keep getting these hack directors who show almost no regard for the fans and what they care about, and keep churning out these gamble movies. Thank god Superman Returns was a hit, or that seriously would've been the end of it. World's Finest is excellent, and in my book, counts as a Superhero Movie.

Sentiment: positive
Sorry, after watching the credits, I thought this would at least be a decent homage to retiring SF actors.

Boy was I wrong.

The direction and story telling in this POS are terrible. I have never been so insulted by a production.

I have great respect and love for many of the actors in this "film" but have to say they were conned.

If you haven't seen this debacle yet, do yourself a favor and stay away. These are not only two hours you won't get back, but they will also ruin your respect for some actors you may once have enjoyed.

Sentiment: negative
I first discovered Alexander Korda's (1940) Fantasy, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD in the early 1950's on a re-issue billed as "The Wonder Show of the Century!" Both Korda Technicolor films, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD and JUNGLE BOOK were shown on one never to be forgotten program. The music of Miklos Rozsa enhanced both films. The Technicolor in each was incredibly beautiful! THE THIEF OF BAGDAD has remained on my list as the best fantasy film ever made. As the years passed, it became more difficult to enjoy the film's color in the way it had originally been presented in. True Technicolor gave way to a Eastman Color process in the middle 1950's. Both Kino and Samuel Goldwyn reissued the film both theatrically and on video. But the Eastman Color prints were more pastel in nature and muted the vibrancy of the original Technicolor. The Laser Disc release of this title also has the pastel look to it -- nice, but not as it should be. NOW comes the M-G-M DVD (3 Dec 2002) issue. THE THIEF OF BAGDAD again has the wonderful Technicolor look to it on a DVD that is nothing short of STUNNING!!! It was so exciting to see it like this once again that after viewing the DVD once, I watched it a second time. The only "Extras" are a Spanish Dubbed version, Sub-Titles in both English & Spanish, and a beautifully done original theatrical trailer. Thank you M-G-M for this EXCEPTIONAL DVD release. Now, one can only hope that Korda's FOUR FEATHERS and a restored version of Korda's JUNGLE BOOK (to replace to poor public domain prints in circulation) will soon follow on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.

Now I was very surprised when I saw reviews for this bland episode that described it as being "among the best" and gave it scores of 10. If this is the case, then why is it that everyone I know who has seen this episode hates it as much as I do? It's possible that me and my family and friends are all cranks but it's also possible this is yet another case of rabid fans rabidly inflating the rating on an average or below average episode.

The episode itself stars William Windom and others as various archetypes--a soldier, a dancer, etc. They are all stuck in a cylindrical room with no escape and only at the end do you realize the "shocking truth"--which isn't at all shocking and is in fact majorly lame. No, this is a badly written and unengaging episode. Yes, there were plenty of episodes of the series that deserved a 10, but few as undeserving as this one due to a shallow script and an unappealing resolution.

Sentiment: negative
I remembered this as being one of my favorite books as a child and had been wanting to read it to my 5 year old daughter for a while now. I knew the movie was coming out soon so we went to the library to get the book and they gave us preview passes for the next day! We rushed home and spent the afternoon reading the book so we could compare. Wasn't necessary. The only thing in common between the book and the movie is the main characters' first name, the fact that there is a bet, and a whole lot of worm eating. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, the kid who cooks most of the worms likes to present his masterpieces with a french accent. How the kids know each other, the number of kids involved, how the bet came about, the number of worms that must be eaten, the time frame in which he has to eat the worms, how they are cooked, progression of friendships, climax scenes, etc., NOTHING is the same. But somehow, it did not ruin the movie for me. The characters are all enjoyable, and the film did not leave me disappointed. Word of caution for parents, there was one moment when you could hear the adults in the room collectively draw their breath and that was when Billy's little brother referred to his penis as a "dilly dick". The embarrassing part came when my daughter proceeded to ask those sitting around us, "Does anybody know what a dilly dick is?" lol. That and an occasional "shut up" is as foul mouthed as this film gets. My daughter thought she might get sick around worm 3 and 4 (and was holding the empty nacho container just in case) but was fine by worm 6. She and I both really enjoyed the film and had a wonderful time sharing the experience.

Sentiment: positive