DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
As a fan of Wm. Faulkner since college, I was especially pleased to see Intruder In the Dust and for other reasons. My grandfather, also named Clarence Brown as was the director, grew up in the Oxford area having been born near there in 1888. We attended a week long family reunion at Oxford in July, 1964 a mere 15 years after filming the movie. It still looked mostly like it does in the film but was going thru a period of civil rights upheaval then as the site of Ole Miss. My recollection is of its being a nice little college town that summer but I was just an 18 year old college sophomore and white. I was just then beginning to see the injustice of segregation and prejudice but still had a long way to go. Anyhow, the movie is well worth watching but the filmmakers must have had to walk a tight rope to get it done there and I would love to know more about that story. 

Now days, Oxford is a larger, more modern college town with all the ills that go along with such things and I hope to return again to see how it must have changed socially in the last 40 plus years. Juano Hernandez should certainly have been nominated for an Oscar that year but Hollywood was still to bigoted itself to let that happen. Other Faulkner stories have been filmed so look for them and compare. One of the best was a PBS treatment of The Barn Burner from about 1985 or so starring Tommy Lee Jones. It really captured the intensity of rural Southern whites that Faulkner wrote so incisively about so often.

Sentiment: positive
Naturally, along with everyone else, I was primed to expect a lot of Hollywood fantasy revisionism in THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON over the legend of Custer. Just having someone like Errol Flynn play Custer is enough of a clue that the legend has precedence over the truth in this production. And for the most part my expectations were fulfilled (in an admittedly rousing and entertaining way).

Yet even in this obviously biased (and much criticized) retelling of the Custer story, I was struck by some of the points made in this movie that, sometimes subtly but nevertheless solidly, seemed to counter the typical clichés of manifest destiny and unvarnished heroism usually found in Westerns of the early 20th century.

For instance, even while this film attempted to whitewash it's hero, certain scenes still suggested the more flawed and foolish character of the real-life Custer: 

1) His initial entrance at the West Point front gate, in which his arrogance and pompousness is a clear aspect of his character.

2) His miserable record at West Point, which seems to be attributed as much to Custer's cluelessness about the demands of military service as any other factor; there are moments in the way Flynn plays Custer at West Point where he seems downright stupid.

3) Custer's promotion to General is not only presented as a ridiculous mistake, but it plays out as slapstick comedy. I half-expected to see the Marx Brothers or Abbott and Costello wander into the scene.

4) Custer's stand against Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg is not whitewashed as brilliant military tactical leadership, but is presented as reckless and wildly lucky.

5) Custer's drinking problem is certainly not ignored.

And although the music and some of the ways the Indians were shown in this film were certainly reinforcements of the racist stereotype of the ignorant savage, it still came as a surprise to me that the movie actually went into some detail as to why the Indians were justified in attacking the whites who were moving into their land, and fairly explicitly laid the blame for the battles in the Black Hills squarely at the foot of the white man. In fact, no one can argue that the clear villain of the piece is not Anthony Quinn as Sitting Bull, but Arthur Kennedy & Co. as the white devils making the false claim of gold in the Black Hills. Sure, that part of the story is true, but I didn't expect to see it portrayed quite so unequivically in a movie like this.

And one other thing: usually in these films it is the Indians who are portrayed en masse as drunken animals seemingly incapable of the basic common sense to avoid getting falling down drunk any time they get near alcohol. In this movie, it is actually the troops of the 7th Cavalry, and not the Indians, who in at least two scenes are portrayed this way.

All in all, this movie slips in some surprising moments in the midst of the Hollywood bunk.

Sentiment: positive
Three businessmen are involved in a bar fight with three mysterious men. The three businessmen take revenge, which escalates to a murder after another. Supposedly the story is about the violence that could happen to ordinary people.

The plot has too many holes. The details were ignored in order to move the story forward. The acting was uneven. The color balance was awful even though I watched this movie in DVD. The small budget and tight schedule were apparent. The whole thing seems to be an excuse to shoot the final gun fight, and the ending was just unbelievable.

Sentiment: negative
This is a film exploring the female sexuality in a way not so often used. Almost every other film with this kind of sexual scenes always becomes rated X, and so seen as a pornographic movie. Here is a kind of romantic horror story combined with the females "own satisfaction" need.

A very good film!

Sentiment: positive
Well to start with I'm straight up as black as black gets, and I can tell you it's very sad when black people think a "black movie" sucks. I can't say i've ever seen a movie this badly directed or a worse story line.

Snoop is my dawg and all but he wasn't feeling this movie at all, I don't know how much they paid him to be in this bucket of crap called a movie, but i hope it's enough to wash the smell out.

I'm all about supporting a bothers movie, but this one was bad, really really bad. It blew chucks in every aspect, no real plot, story sucked, cast couldn't act and the best one there was the white guy!

I almost demanded a refund on my way out the door of the theatre, half the crowd up and left before it was over, I'm still wishing I had too. Save yourself some pain and go see something else, anything else...

Sentiment: negative
I think that a lot of friends of people who acted in this thing must've come on and rated it because I'm telling you, its just awful. The acting is worse than soapopera bad, the effects are like something you'd see out of a 1970 episode of Doctor Who, the story is, well, there is no story. And they keep using the same 2 minute song over and over and over again. And the werewolf? Its like the muppets they used in Wing Commander, the giant cats, remember how bad they looked? The werewolf is that bad. Seriously, the guy who directed this thing is terrible and should never get to direct anything else again, except maybe his son's school play, but even then, he should have to pay the audience to see it. Ghostwolf is nothing but a bad joke.

Sentiment: negative
Gary Busey did a splendid job playing the rock-n-roll legend Buddy Holly(1936-59). He does have a spitting image to the man. Being a garage band in the 50's is sure different from today's. Having a group of three is usually simple back in those days. I bet that Buddy Holly(Busey) was a much better musician than most of what I heard. Since he lived in Lubbock, Texas, it was only a quiet country town back then. His parents were Christians, though his mother was a strong supporter of her son's work. That's one of the reasons he didn't act like Elvis. He stuck to his kinder ways. That really makes him good! When he went to Tennessee, he saw how bad the producers were. They hated rock-n-roll, that turned Holly off big time. Getting used to the different atmosphere was a challenge to Holly and his friends. He got to tour with Sam Cooke, went to the famous Apollo, which the all-Afro-American audience quickly accepted them, I liked that! And Sam Cooke made sure Holly and his band got some service. That's what I call tolerance. It's sad that he, Ritchie Valens, and J.P. "The Big Bopper" Richardson had their music careers cut short by a plane crash in 1959, at least their memories will live on in our hearts. I don't what inaccuracies were in the movie, all I care is that Buddy Holly overcame the obstacles of music and politics in that time, and the music is nearly-perfect. For Gary Busey, he was perfect in the role, and making the music as well. GOD BLESS YOU GARY BUSEY! 5 STARS!

Sentiment: positive
What a nasty cynical film. Apparently this sad excuse for a dramatic urban look at what 20 year olds do whilst crawling through the gutter of Sydney nightlife is supposed to be somehow connecting with its target market. Made by some Industry nobody and pals who seemingly thought they could cobble together any sleazy behavior with a young cast and pour it into multiplexes, SAMPLE PEOPLE deservedly failed miserably at the Australian box office. It is so offensive in its clichéd depictions of obvious and easy targets it was fully rejected by the very audience it was intended. Shoddy and cruel and with no attempt to offer quality or resonance to the young audience who might have been attracted by the marketing or casting SAMPLE PEOPLE might have been interesting or even informative if not botched by its exploitive view of 'what teens want to see in a movie'. The character played by Ben Mendelsohn is particularly offensive and Kylie Minogue is again wasted by poor material and untalented film makers. It is as if the producers thought teens would watch any ugly trash and just slung-together scenes and characters who were shallow and soul less. Well the were very wrong. A mini budget film made in 1983 called GOING DOWN got this topic right and is an excellent antidote to this poison.

Sentiment: negative
I used to work in a video store. I saw this title in the horror section and took it home as a free rental one night.

This movie was truly awful, there is no redeeming quality about it, because it actually takes a well respected sub genre of film and just goes about destroying it. If the first film wasn't low budget enough then this film truly takes the biscuit, being housed (mostly) indoors and at night...therefore avoiding the scenic cost setting of the first film In the first 5 minutes of this film a college lecturer comically runs over an attractive student. Rather than be mortified, the lecturer half heartedly apologises and the girl mentions that despite being thrown across the cars bonnet (he sped up as he approached her) that there is nothing to worry about...after which he attacks her with a crowbar and kills her! If this isn't strange enough, he wants to perform an experiment upon her, bringing her back from the dead....and so feels the need to remove her clothing to do so.

Soft core female nudity (and pubic hair) is rampant throughout the film and is, to be honest,the only real thing to hold the average male viewers interest...like the swimming scene in the first film...but even having said that this film goes from bad to worse with its bad character acting, crappy dialogue and absurd plot turns....why introduce a pivotal character who has survived 29 days from zombie attack only to kill them within 10 minutes....its just a very very bad film

Sentiment: negative
This was a movie that I hoped I could suggest to my American friends. But after 4 attempts to watch the movie to finish, I knew I couldn't even watch the damn thing to close. You are almost convinced the actual war didn't even last that long. Other's will try to question my patriotism for criticizing a movie like this. But flat out, you can't go from watching Saving Private Ryan to LOC. Forget about the movie budget difference or the audience - those don't preclude a director from making an intelligent movie. The length of the movie is not so bad and the fact that it is repetitive - they keep attacking the same hill but give it different names. I thought the LOC was a terrible terrain - this hill looked like my backyard. The character development sequences (the soilders' flashbacks, looking back to their last moments, before being deployed) should have been throughout the movie and not just clumped into one long memory. To this day, I have yet to watch the ending. But there was a much better movie (not saying much) called Border.

Sentiment: negative
Stanley Stupid (Tom Arnold) and his wife, Joan, like to sleep in bed with their heads under the covers and their feet on the pillows. They have two equally challenged children, Buster and Petunia. One day, Mr. Stupid notices their garbage is gone again....there must be someone stealing it from the curb. He goes off in roller blades after the garbage truck. When he finally gets to the dump, he is startled to learn not only that "other folks garbage" has been stolen, too, but that there is a secret organization meeting at the landfill. He is determined to defeat the garbage nappers of the world, it seems. Meanwhile, Petunia and Buster visit the police station and a Chinese restaurant in search of their parents, for Joan comes up missing, too. Will they bumble their way through their problems? This is just a stupid, stupid movie, with the culprit being the terrible script. The books by Allard and Marshall are hysterical and only a couple of situations from the books ends up in this film. Arnold is actually quite nice as Mr. Stupid and the other cast members try very, very hard to make the film work. The production values are very high, with the dog and cat belonging to the Stupids adding a little oomph to the film. But, it is all for naught, as the plot is wandering and weak. Perhaps, someday, someone will take another stab at translating the very funny Allard books to the big screen. Therefore, if you love to laugh, rent something else while you await a new production and, by all means, go get the books, too. But, stay away from being stupid yourself, as anyone who watches this movie to the end could hardly be called intelligent.

Sentiment: negative
A fierce, shockingly intelligent piece of work from the gifted British writer Hanif Kureishi who wrote "My Beautiful Laundrette", (this is the best thing he's done since then). It's about intelligent people whose lives don't add up to much. They've squandered what they have been given and are largely empty vessels. The only character on screen who is alive is the mother of the title yet she feels dead inside until a rough handyman shows her some affection and awakens her to the joys of sex. He has his own motives but Kureishi treats him with a good deal of compassion. This is a film in which people and places feel familiar, where characters exist beyond the confines of the screen. In some respects it's a bit like "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" but it's an altogether tougher piece of work. The director, Roger Michell, allows scenes to build instinctively. And it is beautifully acted.

As the eponymous mother Anne Reid betrays her wasted life in every gesture. There is not a false note in her extraordinarily lived-in performance, and that very fine actor Daniel Craig displays shadings to his character than even Kureishi hasn't tapped into. If the film strikes a false note it is, perhaps, in the character of the talentless daughter, caught up in a messy affair with the man her mother seduces (or should that be the other way round) and even messier life, but she is so well played by Cathryn Bradshaw she hooks you in nevertheless. The film is also extremely beautiful to look at (DoP Alwin Kuchler) and must rank, unhesitatingly, as the best British film of the year.

Sentiment: positive
I was fascinated as to how truly bad this movie was. Was the viewer supposed to learn something, or reflect on anything here? What was up with the pumpkins? Was I supposed to be impressed with the motel shots? Does it matter that there are some garbage bags on a rooftop across the street of a hotel? Why does the narrator unsuccessfully mock the people he interviews (it is so obvious that he edited out the really informative parts of his interviews to achieve mockery). The best part of the movie was the interview with the film professor who tells us how bad this movie will be even before it is finished.

I am truly amazed. I believe that the creator is struggling to become an intellectual or is trying to impress the intellectual community.

Sentiment: negative
Even though he only made his debut film in Australia and left for Great Britain and then America to continue his career, Australians will tell you that the greatest film star they ever produced was Errol Flynn. I'm not sure he ever even went back to Australia after his breakout success in Captain Blood. Still I attribute this film to the well known Aussie irreverence for trashing the reputation of one of their own.

Part of the problem in telling Errol Flynn's life story was that he told enough tall tales in his life right up to the very end in his memoir, My Wicked Wicked Ways. I could see that a lot of the film was based on that and upon reading between the lines of that book.

His mother's infidelity to his father was not written, but could have been inferred in reading My Wicked Wicked Ways. He didn't particularly like the woman, that is clear from a few sources. 

I wish the film had dealt more with his New Guinea adventures, that to me was the most interesting part of My Wicked Wicked Ways. As for his street fighting in the Depression, I tend to disbelieve that. Even if he had been successful at it, I guarantee that enough of that would have ruined his looks and he would never have had a career as a leading man.

Still the folks down under seem to think the atmosphere of Sydney during the Depression was captured well and Guy Pearce is a charismatic Errol Flynn. American audiences know him best as the uptight, but honest Lieutenant Exley in LA Confidential which came out the same year as Flynn.

But LA Confidential was a far better film.

Sentiment: negative
Of course this came out right at the beginning of the 1980s. Of course it did. Those drama students dancing in the street to Irene Cara's famous theme song, it's an indelible eighties leg-warmer style image. But there's more to the film than that. There's deprivation, and one man's struggle to learn to read, and a struggle with sexuality, and an attack on a child, and one girl tricked into taking topless photographs, and contemplation of suicide. In the end, though, it is also about that song.

Sentiment: positive
And this somebody is me. And not only me, as I can see here at IMDb or when leaving the theater. Why did the people love it? It's obvious: Everybody knows zombies by now (at least the Horror fans by heart and the others through the "Dawn of the Dead" reinvention or Resident Evil movies etc.) 

Or at least they thought they knew everything about zombies ... that is until this movie came along. And you'll see zombies in a new light (perhaps). This is not a horror movie, although it does contain some violent scenes, but is rather a comedy. A satire to be precise. And it never runs out of steam! That is why I rated it so high. Pacing wise it's incredible, the acting is great and the script has no (obvious) mistakes ... quite the contrary: It's a gem and if you're only a little bit interested in zombies you ought to see it! And even if you dislike them, watch it! Because it's a great (comedy) movie!

Sentiment: positive
There's something about every "Hammer" movie I see that really takes me into a new fantasy world. In the world of "Hammer" movies, anything can happen. "Guardian of the Abyss" is one of those types of movies. It adventures deep into the occult and hypnosis to bring a different type of horror fantasy. All in all, an unforgettable movie. 7.5/10.

Sentiment: positive
Going into this movie, I was a bit cautious. I have always been a bit iffy about claymation movies. I've always enjoyed decent animated movies, but claymation was always different to me. But this one caught me by surprise. Wallace And Gromit are extremely lovable characters, and it's a great story with jokes for all ages. There's the silly burp/fart jokes for the kids and the subtle, but over the head of young kids, jokes for us older people. Very neat claymation and while the story had holes, it kept my interest beginning to end.

It's so rare to find pure and uncorrupted humor these days, this movie was all the more refreshing. Wallace and Gromit go doing their normal thing, which is exterminating HUMANELY the buggers that ruin people's vegetable crops. But this time they find themselves fighting some form of a freak huge rabbit that their humanely built traps can't even keep under tabs. Great laughs and a great hour and a half of fun. If you have not exposed yourself to Wallace And Gromit, I highly recommend this movie.

The only reason I rate it a 7 and not higher is because it's still a family movie and I don't have kids. I enjoyed it, but if I had been watching it with some little rug rats and my wife, it'd be at least a 9 for sure! Give it a shot!

Sentiment: positive
For years, I've been a big fan of Park's work and "Old boy" is one of my all-times favorite.

With lots of expectation I rented this movie, only to find the worst movie I've watched in awhile. It's not a proper horror movie; there's no suspense in it and even the "light" part is so lame, that I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

I introduced my younger brother to Chan-Wook Park and what a disappointment he got from this. For me, an idol has fallen.

If you loved movies like "Old boy", the Mr & Lady "Vengeance" or even his short films on "Three extremes", don't waste your time, the film's not worth it.

Sentiment: negative
In the same way Lamberto Bava was a substandard facsimilie of his father, Mario (who was an extremely overrated director anyway), Michele Soavi is a substandard director in the Dario Argento mold. "The Church" has at least one thing to recommend it--the incredibly detailed art direction--but absolutely nothing else. The film is long-winded, filled with one-dimensional characters, and almost put me to sleep several times. There's a fine line between 'art' and 'pretentious crap,' and while "The Church" isn't completely worthless, you'd be better off watching something else.

3/10

Sentiment: negative
I've probably been spoilt by having firstly seen the 1973 version with Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack so the 1983 adaptation is such a disappointment. I just didn't get any chemistry between the 2 main stars. A lot of staring and theatrical acting just doesn't do it for me, and what was all that about putting Tim in the role of Rochester. Had the casting director actually ever read the book. Very strange! He's a fine actor but Mr. Rochester he definitely isn't! And Zelah was just, well, strange, bit of a mix matched couple. In it's favour the supporting cast were pretty good and the Lowood scenes for me were the best of the adaptation, but overall didn't capture any of the magic of the novel. Certainly wouldn't ask anyone to watch it as a true adaptation of the novel. A real let down!

Sentiment: negative
As a writing teacher, there are two ending I never allow my students to use: "Then I woke up" and "Then I Got Run Over by a Truck." I am now going to add, "Then I got a bump on the head." I feel it's utterly unfair to use these tricks to cover up a lack of imagination. The whole issue of transmigration could have been handled with some intelligence and craft, yet, in this film, they either couldn't or wouldn't do that. I'm not saying it's totally worthless, but it is so predictable in its progress, except for the stupid ending. There are even gangsters who go to the police to get help from this guy. They should have done him in immediately. It's just a forgettable, borderline horror/sci fi film, with nothing new to offer.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was like "The Disney Channel after Dark." Take out the "aren't we naughty" language and themes and you are left with dialogue and plot devices that insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't describe "Saved by the Bell" as quality television. The dialogue so laughably cliched and knowingly dirty, one might think the screenplay was the product of locking Aaron Spelling and Joe Eszterhas in a room with orders to produce an amalgam of every bad script each had ever had a hand in creating. If that was Roger Kumble's intention, mission accomplished.

Sentiment: negative
Dark Harvest is a very low budget production made by a bunch of rank amateurs which manages to come off as a kind of semi-professional movie. Unfortunately the poor effects, wooden acting and unoriginal story makes this a very mediocre horror slasher at best. By no means is Dark Harvest the worst horror movie i've ever seen, it just isn't anything special and has nothing in it to warrant a second watch or hope for a sequel. You know a director has doubts about their own horror film when a) there is some pointless nudity and b) the movie's so short they add some rather boring outtakes at the end credits that nobody really cares about because the movie wasn't that good! A slightly better movie which i can't help feeling was the inspiration for Dark Harvest is the eighties movie 'Scarecrows' which is an OK movie but still pretty average.

Dark Harvest isn't as bad as some of the other comments say it is but don't think that you will be entertained much either. One thing i also have to comment on is the character of Angela who has a really terrible English accent! What was the point in that?! To maybe give it a certain touch of class? Yeah right! English people do NOT say "WAAHTAAH" when they mean to say "water" and i don't care what part of England they are from! If you can't find a genuine English actress or a non-English actress who can put on a brilliant English accent (not many of them about) then DON'T BOTHER! Sheesh! Final score: 4/10

Sentiment: negative
Pretty bad PRC cheapie which I rarely bother to watch over again, and it's no wonder -- it's slow and creaky and dull as a butter knife. Mad doctor George Zucco is at it again, turning a dimwitted farmhand in overalls (Glenn Strange) into a wolf-man. Unfortunately, the makeup is virtually non-existent, consisting only of a beard and dimestore fangs for the most part. If it were not for Zucco and Strange's presence, along with the cute Anne Nagel, this would be completely unwatchable. Strange, who would go on to play Frankenstein's monster for Unuiversal in two years, does a Lenny impression from "Of Mice and Men", it seems.

*1/2 (of Four)

Sentiment: negative
I thought this movie was fantastic. It was hilarious. Kinda reminded me of Spinal Tap. This is a must see for any fan of 70's rock. (I hope me and my friends aren't like that in twenty years!)

Bill Nighy gives an excellent performance as the off kilter lead singer trying to recapture that old spirit,

Stephen Rea fits perfectly into the movie as the glue trying to hold the band together, but not succeeding well.

If you love music, and were ever in a band, this movie is definitely for you. You won't regret seeing this movie. I know I don't. Even my family found it funny, and that's saying something.

Sentiment: positive
Over the last few months, I have seen a lot of reviews for The Italian Job, many of them negative. The gist of almost all of these pessimistic criticisms is that, for all its modernistic bravado and high-budget technology, the film doesn't have much substance where it counts. Look, people, it's just a fun movie. This is the type of picture where you're supposed to sit back, relax, and just enjoy the steady-moving pace of the film. Like Ocean's Eleven (2001), you can concentrate on the characters and the plot at the same time without having to do much thinking (lucky for some of us). Granted, "Ocean" is a better movie, but who cares? The plot may have some holes (there's a huge one about 3/4 of the way through), the action may not be as gratifyingly gratuitous as the trailers made it out to be, and some of the dialogue may seem pointless and cheesy, but again, who really cares? Cool characters, Mini Coopers, big explosions, Charlize Theron. What more do you want? I think it's time to drop the fake Roger Ebert meets Gene Shalit act and enjoy yourself for once! Oh, and another thing, whatever you do, don't compare it to the original because, to reiterate what F. Gary Gray has told the press a million times, THIS IS NOT A REMAKE!! My advice- if you're interested in nit-picking your way through a good-humored, fun flick, don't even bother seeing The Italian Job. But, if you don't have a severe inferiority complex and/or want to see Ed Norton get jacked by a bunch of Ukranians, go ahead. The Bottom Line, my fellow moviegoers, is: Lighten Up and Have Fun, Dammit.

Sentiment: positive
As a Genghis Khan "fan" I was looking forward to this movie. After devouring Conn Igguldens epic novels about Genghis and reading up on loads of historic records I feel I know something on the subject and was thrilled to share my knowledge with friends via this movie...

That turned out a deception. This movie is practically made up from beginning to end. There are a few things that seem correct but mostly it is pure make believe of the writers. That does not have to be a problem, I like good entertainment just like anyone else unfortunately it is mostly boring. Nothing of the greatness comes forth in this movie.

I would NOT recommend this movie if you know anything on the subject.

Sentiment: negative
I stopped watching this film half way through. It was just terrible! Boring, contrived subplots. A complete lack of the pathos seen in Norman Bates, Buffalo Bill, or Steve Railsback's portrayal of Ed Gein. A movie doesn't have to be historically accurate, but the true story of Ed Gein is so much more interesting than this third-rate melodrama that was completely made up for no good reason! Ed Gein as portrayed by Kane Hodder is a cartoon sadist. The attempts to show the trauma inflicted on him by his mother are just weak exercises in recycled style. And this movie wanted to be stylish, but it even screwed that up. Fortunately, there is a better film of this story. 2001's Ed Gein told the story efficiently, and offered a few real chills as we watched a sick man not in control of himself. Steve Railsback, who played Ed Gein that time, was already famous for memorably portraying another famous serial killer: Charles Manson. His Ed had pathos. His film is the one to see. Avoid this mess.

Sentiment: negative
It's hard for me to assign the "fair" number of stars to this film, but I settled on 8 because of its high production values and what was, in 1968, an innovative approach to the war film. Remember too that I haven't seen it since 1969. But it did make a strong impression.

The Long Day's Dying must be one of the most vivid antiwar films ever made. It achieves this simply by portraying in extremely realistic terms the actions of a handful of soldiers in Northwestern Europe in 1944-45. No film before this one showed war at the infantry squad level with so much brutal detail, and all in a coldly dispassionate way that lets the actions speak for themselves. There is no preaching, no sentimentality, no comic relief, no complicated scenarios.

Unfortunately, there's no subtlety either. Partly because of their situation - trying to stay alive - the characters come across as flat, familiar cliché's. As "entertainment," the film doesn't make it, though it was clearly not intended to "entertain." It was intended to slug you over the head with the misery and horror of World War II and modern war in general. This was twenty years before Platoon and thirty before Saving Private Ryan, both of which are far more "watchable" films. Here the flat and generally disagreeable characters, the lack of an actual plot, and the realistically unpleasant images (including what may be the first on-screen vomit in theatrical history) make the film hard to sit through, though it is only 95 minutes.

So, 10 stars for production and realism, 4 stars for the feeling you'll have when it's over, a bonus star for having its heart in the right place. Average: 8.

Like Carl Foreman's underrated "The Victors," an equally downbeat but more interesting and thought-provoking film, The Long Day's Dying seems not to be on DVD. Why not? Both films have been on cable a number of times.

Sentiment: positive
Skip all the subjective "this is a great film" reviews and read the IMDB trailer or the back the KINO videobox (which includes both versions of this flick) which I'll paraphrase: "To the tune of sci-fi score by George Antheil, the camera goes on a sleepwalk through B-Movie hell, all photographed by Will Thompson (who did 'Plan 9 from outer space' & 'Maniac')." You don't know whether to laugh AT the film or WITH it. So if you like self-produced B or C-grade noir-wannabe actors and effects with pretensions of surrealism, this could be for you! Otherwise, get a copy of "Screamplay", a modern low-budget expressionist masterpiece.

Sentiment: negative
I have rarely laughed so hard at a movie. Notice that I laughed AT Iron Eagle, not WITH it, because this is probably the stupidest film I have ever seen (with the obvious exception of sci-fi monstrosity CyberTracker). You should also remember that this film is not a comedy!

Even overlooking the preposterous plot (the idea that a 16-year-old could walk into a US Air Force base, steal an F-16, fly to the Middle East and kill about a thousand people without anyone noticing is beyond belief), the film is full of ridiculous action scenes that make little or no sense. For example, at various points, Doug Masters uses a machine-gun on his plane to shoot a steel girder, a control tower, and a tent. All of these things explode in a massive fireball. Why? The enemy aircraft also explode in a strange way reminiscent of a paper aeroplane being blown up with a firework.

On the plus side, I did actually enjoy this film. Admittedly not in the way the makers probably wanted it to be enjoyed, but all the same I laughed at it and later bought the DVD. It's also improved by the awesome presence of David Suchet as the evil terrorist leader (maybe you'll recall him as mustachioed Belgian detective Poirot?) Overall, then, the film is a laugh and a light-hearted alternative to more serious fighter-plane movies like Top Gun. Even if it is just as subtly homo-erotic (check out the man-hug between Doug and Chappy. Something's going on between 'em!)

Sentiment: negative
Hey, I'm a fan of so-bad-so-good movies but there's nothing so-bad-so-good about Rise Of The Undead. It's just so-bad and that's it. No redeeming cheese, no unintentional humor, nothing! - boring apocalyptic Zombie (The "Undead" : a few people with hardly any make up) nonsense with lame special effects (if you can call those effects), dumb plot and annoying actors. They also have the nerve to rip off and quote from other (better) movies (Resident Evil, Dawn Of The Dead & Night Of The Comet) and managed to put me to sleep on the side. However, it was Rise Of My Eyelids once the end credits rolled though. My advice: save your money. It's not even worth a rental, unless you want to p*ss off and/or put some people to sleep then go ahead and give it a spin. You've been warned ;)

Sentiment: negative
This was the biggest disappointment of a movie...:( Sucks, cos I was really looking forward to it.

All the twists were crap. They were ALL flashbacks!!! 

What makes a good heist movie is the BELIEVABILITY of the the job. Yes it has to be surprising so the audience is stunned, but if you walk away and go that's bulls#!t... what's the point? 

Plus the main heist was a bag snatch anyway! You didn't get to see the team operating at it's full deceptive and brilliant potential. There was not even ONE good heist in this movie! They were all rubbish.. including that french idiot's break dancing crap to get through the lasers... it's easy to do that when they are composited in afterwards! Plus that kind of stuff has already been done in at least one other movie.. and it was stupid then as well...

Also, there's no reason to have even HALF of the 12 or 11 in this movie! What difference do half of the cast really make to the outcome of this movie??? Half the SCENES don't even need to be there! 

The first one was classy. This was CHEAP! And it makes the whole team loose credibility. Especially Ocean himself for bowing down the Bennett.

Sentiment: negative
Proudly and defiantly working class porter Perks(Mr B.Cribbins)is eventually won over by upper middle class family down on their luck. Father(Mr I.Cuthbertson) incarcerated for treason - for which the penalty was death in those days,lest it be forgotten),mother(the very beautiful Miss D.Sheridan)brave and resourceful,loyal and loving,and - principally - older daughter (Miss J.Agutter) tottering on the cusp of adolescence - hurt and confused about the fate of her father. Mr Perks,like many working people of his time,will have nothing to do with anything that he considers smacks of "charity" and it is a key moment in the movie when he finally accepts that birthday gifts he has been given by the children do not compromise his principles. Although the lovely Miss Agutter has received all the accolades it is Mr Cribbins and Miss Sheridan whose performances dominate "The Railway Children".They both know how Edwardian society works from opposite ends of the spectrum but there is an unspoken mutual respect and understanding between them. But this is basically a movie about family.In an era when a mother can kidnap her own daughter and hold her to ransom and be considered as "socially inept" rather than unfit to live in decent society,and when two "human beings" can beat and kick a baby to death without being charged with murder,"family" may be seen as an old - fashioned,elitist, racist even homophobic concept,but a century ago it was the glue that held society together at all levels.Mr Cribbins' and Miss Sheridan's families are archetypal for the age.Strong and loving,sticking together against outside influences,integral units with a moral certainty mocked in the 21st century. What might seem to be a dull,preachy political tract is turned by Mr Lionel Jeffries into a delightful hymn to hope,faith,optimism and courage. That all those attributes were once considered the norm and are now too often the subject of scorn and cynicism is a reflection on our society rather than Miss Nesbit's. No one with more than a passing concern for the human condition can fail to be considerably moved by this quite perfect movie.

Sentiment: positive
Hold Your Man finds Jean Harlow, working class girl from Brooklyn falling for con man Clark Gable and getting in all kinds of trouble. The film starts out as his film, but by the time it's over the emphasis definitely switches to her character.

The film opens with Gable pulling a street con game with partner, Garry Owen and the mark yelling for the cops. As he's being chased Gable ducks into Harlow's apartment and being he's such a charming fellow, she shields him.

Before long she's involved with him and unfortunately with his rackets. Gable, Harlow, and Owen try pulling a badger game on a drunken Paul Hurst, but then Gable won't go through with it. Of course when Hurst realizes it was a con, he's still sore and gets belligerent and Gable has to punch him out. But then he winds up dead outside Harlow's apartment and that platinum blond hair makes her easy to identify. She goes up on an accomplice to manslaughter.

The rest of the film is her's and her adjustment to prison life. Her interaction with the other female prisoners give her some very good scenes. I think some of the material was later used for the MGM classic Caged.

Harlow also gets to do the title song and it's done as torch style ballad, very popular back in those days. She talk/sings it in the manner of Sophie Tucker and quite well. 

Gable is well cast as the con man who develops a conscience, a part he'd play often, most notably in my favorite Gable film, Honky Tonk.

Still it's Harlow who gets to shine in this film. I think it's one of the best she did at MGM, her fans should not miss it.

Sentiment: positive
Wow...I can't believe just how bad ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3) really is. I'd heard the rumors, read the reviews - but had to make my mind up for myself. Well, let me tell ya - IT BLOWS!!! The worst acting of any film ever made, dubbing that must have been done while everyone involved was completely wasted, inept and laughable gore FX, no discernible plot, "cinematography" that looks like my grandma filmed it with her camcorder, weapons props that are no joke - made out of tin-foil - the list goes on and on...

Three guys get stranded on an island where a bunch of weirdos run around with plastic and tin-foil swords. Two of the captives are freed along with a rebel of the island freaks, and are given a day's head start before they are hunted down by the rest of the "tribe"...that's pretty much it...

Honestly - this is one of THE WORST films I've ever had the misfortune to subject myself too. The budget had to be about $200 and was spent entirely on the gore FX (which actually may not have been a bad idea...). There is NOTHING to ZOMBIE DOOM other than strung-together ridiculous looking gore scenes with lots of HORRIBLY dubbed dialog. This film makes other no-budget outings like PREMUTOS: LORD OF THE LIVING DEAD look like TITANIC. Some may rank ZD in the "so-bad-it's-good" category - and I guess if you're REALLY drunk or high and watching it with a few friends MST3K-style - I guess it could be looked at that way. But not by me. I hated pretty much everything about it. If ZOMBIE DOOM or ZOMBIE 90 (which is equally appalling and is included as a "bonus" on the Shock-O-Rama release of ZD) is indicative of Andreas Schnaas' other works - then he should be banned from ever having anything to do with making a film ever again under penalty of death. There is one amusing kung-fu battle in the latter half of the film, and a lot of blood - so I'll grant this one a VERY generous 3/10 - Do yourself a favor and skip this.

Sentiment: negative
It is the best film i have seen in the last 5 years. Surely, it will be in the same row with such masterpieces as The Platoon, Apocalypse Now, The Doors, The Dog's Heart (Russian film). Really, the play of the boy and his parents is so good that you can't even say that they "play". No, they LIVE as if it was happening to them. Notice the smile on there faces when the main hero agrees to go for a walk with them. The hate and love in one piece. And the final scene!

Really, i'm still under impression of that film. It's very hard, even impossible to combine the humor and the tragedy, but if you succeed (and Frederikson did) the impact would be twice strong.

I compared it with "ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST". I like this film either (and the novel itself is good, too), but after Frederikson's movie it seems simple. (the same difference I noticed after i watched the film "American history X" and "ROMPER STOMPER" - the latter is deeper). I mean Milos Forman only showed the material point of view of the problem. You watch it, then you say Yes, it's a good film, i like him, i don't like her, and that's it. But "Angels" leave you a wide base to think. There are no bad and good boys in the film. Cause each of them have the right to behave in the way they do. Like the girlfriend of one of the patient. Of course she's young and is pregnant and that is a problem for her that his husband is in the clinic, but the feelings and emotional experience of her exfriend are even stronger (the result is his suicide). Why ask him what have he done? Aren't you insane yourself to ask? Why do not support him, help him, understand him? Finally, it is even funny when those people talk to each other. They say genius things! There are a lot of things I would like to say about this film, but i'm not so good in english. But i'm sure, those of you, who have watched the movie, understand me.

Good luck!



Sentiment: positive
When I played the first Soul Calibur on dreamcast I thought it was great. When I played the second I was hooked. And finally when Soul Calibur III was released, I bought a playstation 2 and the game.

This can really keep you up for hours, with a huge amount of characters, loads of unlockable content, and not to mention a GREAT fighting system, this really is the greatest fighting game to date. 

The games strong points is foremost the vs. gameplay, were two human players battle each other, either playing as one of the main characters or as a created and customized character. The Create character option is vast, and allows the player to make thousands of different combinations.

The only thing that bothers me is that if you create a character that uses the fighting style "Grieve Edge" (only kicks) has to wear those ridiculous shoes. ^^

This is absolutely the greatest fighting game one could wish for. Now, I'm just hoping the planned movie won't be crap.

Sentiment: positive
If you really have to watch this movie because your girlfriend is in a romantic mood, let it be boy. But prepare yourself by bringing your hp if it comes with a radio.

After having watched such a good movie as Arisan (2003), it is terrible to see what they come up with again in Indonesia. It seems that the only idea is to make money, but no one seems seriously to work on the image of Indonesia in the world of entertainment. That it is a 'global' world doesn't seem to come up in the minds of those who make movies in Indonesia. And since the Indonesian public swallows everything that is presented to them as 'Made in Indonesia' with a flavor of the west, they get away with it.

OK, the story is nice to begin with. And it could have developed into a nice flick. But did the director never think about the fact that a musical needs first of all live music OR at least good playback, and secondly good choreography? In this movie, the playback is SO BAD that it makes you wanna cry right there in the cinema. Every single word you hear is followed seconds LATER by the actor or whoever sing playback, and it is extremely annoying while watching the movie.

The choreography is as if they planned to make a movie about morning gymnastics, but in the end thought it would be nice to turn it into a musical... They only forgot to change the choreography. It is hardly dancing you see, they jump here and there, throw their legs up in the air, and that is about it.

Well, at least there's a happy ending.... But if you can convince your girlfriend that a nice candlelight dinner is much more romantic, DO SO!

Sentiment: negative
What an awful movie. I love monster flicks but I couldn't watch even half of the terrible acting, cardboard characters and abysmal special effects. There is nothing redeeming about this movie. The characters come from either an endless supply of suicidally stupid cannon fodder or else they are vacuous, uninspiring sock puppets. The plot is formulaic, cut and paste, standard science-run-amok drivel. Even the CGI is horrible. You know it's bad when you can't even depend on the movie to provide some good eye candy. No surprises here,just same old same old. This is truly one of the worst films ever made. Director Roger Corman should be hung from a lightpost so that children can use him as a pinata.

Sentiment: negative
This appalling piece of tripe was (conveniently) loosely based on a true story that involved two family members of mine (played by Jack Thompson and Jacqueline Mackenzie).

This film is offensive; besides the fact that it wasn't a particular good film anyway, it does not in any way capture what it was like to lose such a close family member and completely omits those who were really affected by the true-life tragedy.

As for the director; he managed to cash in on a family's misfortune for the price of a Porsche.

If I could have given this a zero I would have.

Avoid this film at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
It is a nice comedy. It has the great features of the childhood, lying or trying to get away from own generated troubles. The casting is great, great acting. And the special effects ? Well, some stunts are really impressive. Watch it! :)

Sentiment: positive
This is one of THE century's best tv-series ever with all the great suspense,story,and a cast of absolutely fantastic actors and love and grief that really gets you involved and captivated in front of your tv. If you have seen it once, you will go back to see it again. I have several times and still do it. The 20 th century's best drama.

Sentiment: positive