DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
First, I rated this movie 10/10. To me, it's simply one of the best I saw since I was born (I'm 23, but I saw numerous films). The story is cruel, but reality is, too, not ? It went deep into me and stirred my bowels. I saw it about 5 or 6 years ago and it still shakes me - and I still remember it !

Second, there is no 'national preference' (this expression is a direct translation from the French) for this movie. I mean it's not because it is a French movie that I put it so high : it has really caught me when I saw it. Furthermore, I don't know well Marcel Carne's filmography, so I don't know if it is or not his best movie, but I know it is not his most famous : Hotel du Nord, Quai des Brumes and Les Enfants du Paradis are the most famous.

Third, the movie's in B&W, but it deals with inter-temporal problems of youth (not acne) like love, friends and studies in a modern way. It could even be remade frame-by-frame with actual young actors, a Dolby(tm) sound and special effects (a car crash), it would still be a great film !

Problem : Maybe is it a film to be seen by young adults (from 16 to 25 years old) - and above, of course - for its message to be well understood... Did I say it was a great movie ?

Sentiment: positive
Was struck at how even the acting was throughout. William Haines had an acting range that is wonderful for silent film. Not over the edge. There are moments where the camera work is most excellent, and combined with the story, like when he is waiting to see the Superintendent, very well done.

 Thoroughly enjoyed the flick.



Sentiment: positive
When I was growing up, Voyage into Space was my most favorite movie. I remember the time when KTLA (Channel 5) ran the movie for the whole week and me and my sisters watched it every single day! I still remember every part of that movie. The ending was so sad when Giant Robot got blown up along with Guillotine and then watching Johnny Sokko with all the tears running down his face calling for Giant Robot. There should have been a sequel to the movie, in which Giant Robot somehow survived the explosion. :) I can't believe that there are so many other Voyage into Space fans still out there. I really want to buy the movie when it comes out on DVD, but my sister said that the ones out there now are bootlegged and probably bad quality copies of the movie. I don't know why they haven't released it yet, since it's been over 40 years now. I think Voyage into Space was made back in 1968. Only now, my second favorite Japanese monster movie of all time (The War of the Gargantuas) is finally coming to DVD and being released on Sept. 9th and I can't wait! :) Now if only they would do the same with Voyage into Space. Giant Robot, Johnny Sokko, and Voyage into Space will never be forgotten! In my eyes and probably many others too, it will always be a childhood classic to me! :)

Sentiment: positive
Despite the pans of reviewers, I liked this movie. In fact, I liked it better than Interview With a Vampire and I liked this Lestat (Stuart Townsend) better than Cruise's attempt. All the major players from the series were present: Talbot, Lestat, Armand, Maharet, Khayman, Pandora, Mael, Marius and a half-dozen more (albeit most of them in cameo). Marius, Lestat and Akasha were the main players (and Jesse of the Talamasca). Also, despite other reviews, I think this movie and the music was faithful to Anne Rice's portrayal and ethos, at least as I perceive it. Aailiyah was pretty good as Akasha, in places compelling (her first entrance and mini dance scene). The movie didn't capture the breadth of the books series but I thought it was a nice supplement.

I'm a big fan of this series mostly due to Anne Rice's style, sensitivities and treatments. And I found this movie a faithful and often superlative representation of the author's vision.

Sentiment: positive
Eisenstein created the Russian Montage Theory, and this film is his finest example. It took years before someone could utilize his ideas and make them work (The Limey, 1999). Nonetheless, the baby carriage scene really demonstrates the discombobulated nature of RMT. Granted, like most movies, it gets long in some parts, the beauty of the film is amazing. One of the best silent films I have ever seen.

Sentiment: positive
I rented this on DVD and I kind of feel bad since Dawson and Lugacy are so earnest about it in the DVD comments. It's not a bad movie exactly, but it's one of those films that desperately wants to be a deep comment on human nature while not realizing that its story is practically a genre. Plus, it is a little simplistic about the issue in a lot of ways, and the characters' behavior often strains belief. I'd say its a film that you would get something out of if you don't have a lot of film/TV/literature/life behind you (to be honest, I've seen almost exactly the same story in horror comics even). Otherwise, its point has been made before and more artfully. And that gets to the big problem, which is that it really doesn't have much of cinematic interest to it besides the point. It ends up being a fairly bland movie overall that invests everything in the idea that the basic story will be shocking and compelling, and it doesn't really pay off.

Sentiment: negative
When people harp on about how "they don't make 'em like they used to" then just point them towards this fantastically entertaining, and quaint-looking, comedy horror from writer-director Glenn McQuaid.

It's a tale of graverobbers (played by Dominic Monaghan and Larry Fessenden) who end up digging up more than just silent, immobile corpses. After the initial shock of this they soon realise that they can actually turn the situation to their advantage. And that's just what they try to do. Mind you, it seems as if things may not have worked out quite as they planned as poor young Arthur (Monaghan) is actually relating his tale to a priest (Ron Perlman) before being taken to the gallows.

Looking at the detail of his filmography, McQuaid seems to have taken the core of his first, short movie and expanded it to this feature effort, which is no bad thing. Fessenden returns and does well, Monaghan is one of those guys who can actually still get you to like him while he goes about the nefarious business of stealing from the dead and with other genre favourites such as Perlman and Angus Scrimm on the scene this film is a lot of fun for genre fans.

It also benefits from a unique and favourable design and look, at times moving from E.C. Comic-style panels into live action (a la Creepshow) and always somehow feeling quite authentic in it's Hammer Horror feel. Maybe everything is just covered over with so much dry ice but that's beside the point. Whatever was done to capture everything on film, it works. It works well.

It may not have any actual scares but this film does have a great vein of black humour and definitely soaks every minute of it's runtime in macabre material that should please all of those who have the patience for horror that's a little bit more sedate and feels like it definitely could have been made back in the days of Hammer.

See this if you like: The Flesh And The Fiends, The Doctor And The Devils, Creepshow.

Sentiment: positive
Let me say from the outset I'm not a particular fan of this kind of film, but Nightbreed holds a certain fascination for me with a message about perspective.

Back in the old days, the folks who inhabit Midian would have been called Zombies, the undead. And according to what Clive Barker has given us certain members of human kind, in this Craig Sheffer are born with the potential to become part of that world.

Psychiatrist David Cronenberg at first looking like the mild mannered professional has taken unto himself a fanatical mission to rid the world of the Nightbreed. He tricks the police into killing Sheffer, but Sheffer goes to a graveyard named Midian cemetery where the Nightbreed congregate and live underground. 

Sheffer has also left a girl friend, Anne Bobby, who still has feelings for him even after he's been killed and is now one of the undead. She tries in her own small way to be a bridge to humankind. 

Clive Barker's creatures are a pretty gruesome looking lot and are not particularly fond of humans. But it's plain to see that if humans left them alone, the Nightbreed in turn not bother with them.

Your sympathies are definitely with the Nightbreed especially after seeing a fanatic like Cronenberg and redneck police chief Charles Haid in action.

Clive Barker's been an out gay man for some time now and some have suggested to me that the Nightbreed is a metaphor for gay people. I can see where that would come in, especially since there are a whole lot of people who don't even think of gays as anything human because they're taught that way.

Granted Nightbreed is pretty bloody with a lot of gratuitous violence, but it also does make you think and I do like the way Clive Barker does turn traditional theology on its head and makes Craig Sheffer a kind of messiah for the Nightbreed creatures.

Sentiment: positive
Man! I remember this show with nostalgic... I really dug Bravestarr because he wasn't the conventional hero. He was more than a futuristic Texas cowboy. The man had the strenght of a bear, the vision of a walk, and the agility of a ... I can't remember that one.

The action sequences were great! I remember that Bravestarr would always use his bazooka named SARAJUANA (translated to Spanish) anytime he was in big troubles.

This was a quality action cartoon. I loved the characters, the dialogs, the music, and of course, the opening credits sequence! Bravestarr! long live to him. A cult classic in my opinion and a must see.

Sentiment: positive
The Killing Yard is a great film, although uneven at times. Morris Chestnut puts forth a phenomenal effort as a mentally wounded and judicially jilted prison inmate, and the presence of Alan Alda as his defense attorney is none other than genius. The emotion and raw reality portrayed in this film's "flashback" scenes have the ability of putting viewers directly into the midst of the events being pictured. I was not even born when the Attica riot took place, however, through extensive research, I find that "The Killing Yard" does the story all of it's fair justices. I would definitely recommend this film for viewing by any educational or activist group as a much needed learning tool.

Sentiment: positive
They have taken a story dear to the people of Edinburgh's heart, a true story and changed it as Hollywood has done before to many a tale. The end result is a movie however well done for those how do not know the story yet totally different and inaccurate. The original movie of this tale that Walt Disney himself oversaw used the right breed dog that is crucial for this tale and did not make that John Grey was anything special he was a poor Shepard who died in poverty at the inn. If you like the story, watch the Disney original for a better heart- warming story. It's a Shame the cast and the potential was there for a terrific remake of a classic tale. Read the book for an accurate occurrence of the story. And if you really like it, you can visit the real Kirkyard in Edinburgh.

Sentiment: negative
...And that's why hard to rate. 

From the adult point of view (hmm, student point of view:)). i must say i fell nearly asleep here. Sure, there is some laughing scene (all the credit takes here Eddie), but that can't save the disney type of script and whole movie, that's why

2 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
This highly derivative film will be entertaining for the many who have not seen some of the more obscure anime films. I enjoyed most of it, especially after the rather flat opening minutes in the museum (although the pre-title sequence is very entertaining and includes some of the better bits of animation). James Garner as the Commander and Leonard Nimoy as the King give impressive performances.

Sentiment: positive
Cleopatra 2525 is a very funny, entertaining show. You shouldn't take all the show seriously, but if you wanna have fun, that's your TV show. Being made by the producers of Xena is a quality guarantee, and Cleopatra 2525 isn't that different from Xena. The female warriors formula is brought to the future, where they don't have to fight warriors or gods, but dangerous robots which dwell in the surface, and the humans are forced to live underground. Along the two seasons of Cleopatra, they develop an interesting and funny underground world, and we get to know the three main characters: Cleopatra (Jennifer Sky), Hel (Gina Torres) and Sarge (Victoria Pratt). They all are different, but as a team, they work really well. The three main actresses appeared previously in Xena, like most of the regular/guest cast (there are some known faces from Hercules too, or from both shows). I specially liked the character played by Danielle Cormack (Ephiny in Xena), which is very different from any of her roles I previously knew. So if you liked Xena and Hercules, you'll love Cleopatra 2525. If you don't know them, try it: I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Sentiment: positive
Ladies and Gentlemen, may we present the worst of all Disney remakes. Although the name of this movie is "That Darn Cat", it should have been "That Darn Teen" or "FBI Agent". The cat didn't get any real good scenes, Ricci's character was more annoying than funny, Doug E. Doug didn't get any good lines, even Dean Jones's cameo role couldn't save this movie! The only really good characters were the town's only two auto mechanics, but their scenes were only brief. In all, I'd say that if you are considering watching this movie, go get something more intelligent like a Barney video.

Sentiment: negative
I approached this movie with the understanding that it was one of the worst flicks ever made. I sat down to watch it with this mindset, and was pleasantly surprised.

It's not great. It's not even that good; in fact, it's pretty poor. However, it's not as bad as I had been led to believe, by a long shot. It's pretty inept, and, evidently as a cost cutting measure, a lot of stock footage is pressed into service, a lot of which has no apparent relation to the narrative.

What it is, however, is an intensely personal movie made by a man who evidently did not have the skills or the funding to do his idea justice. Before you discount _Glen or Glenda?_ out of hand, examine your own artistic skills. Me, I'd love to be able to draw, but anything I try to sketch comes out like stick men. I'd love to be able to sing, but all I do is frighten young children.

Wood had an idea, and unfortunately he didn't have what it takes to make it work. However, this was an incredibly daring movie for the puritan 50s, however exploitative or incoherent it may appear at first glance.

Sentiment: negative
I love this show. I watch all the reruns every day even though I have seen all of them like 6 time s each.

It's about two sisters, Holly (Amanda Bynes) and Val (Jennie Garth), who live in New York. Holly goes to live with Val when their dad is transferred to Japan. Val has the perfect life, she has a boyfriend and a perfect apartment of the Upper East Side.

The show basically shows all the problems Vall and Holly go through. the main problem is guys but also is about being responsible and other life choices.

Holly is 16 and is a total free spirit while Val is the complete opposite. She is the organized has to have a plan to do anything kind of person.

The other characters are Henry, Vince, Gary, Lauren, and Tina.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is just great... It starts out real slow and boring but as the movie progresses.....well the fun keeps on coming. The power of the movie is perhaps in it's subtle references to a lot (and I mean a lot) of other movies. For me the best part was perhaps the Bruce Lee/Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon scene. How the two actors switches from French to Chinese or whatever Asian language it was, it was awesome. Then the jokes with the names, they are hilarious but perhaps you won't understand all of them when your an American (no offense). Overall a great movie

Sentiment: positive
I couldn't believe I spent $14.00 on this. The only redeeming quality is the outrageous gore. The dubbing was worse than any I have ever experienced. It looks like it was shot with a VHS camcorder. I think every pfennig was spent on the special effects because there was a whole lot of blood and body parts everywhere. Its one of the worst movies I have ever seen but I do have to acknowledge the plentiful gore that wasn't as disgusting as it could have been because the whole movie is so silly and unbelievable

Sentiment: negative
These days Spielberg's "The Color Purple" is mostly remembered for being nominated for eleven Oscars and winning zilch. What's even more alarming is that Spielberg himself wasn't even nominated for Best Director. Needless to say, the film-makers deserved more acclaim than they were accorded.

The story concerns the trials and tribulations of Celie Johnson (Whoopi Goldberg), an African-American woman dominated at first by her incestuous father and then by her abusive husband. The film spans several years and focuses mainly on Celie's relationships with the women around her. It's told from a decidedly female perspective but you needn't fear that it's a saccharine 'chick flick'.

The story is an interesting one, livened with humour at times although the central character's struggles are paramount. Some may not appreciate the change in tone towards the film's end but I didn't mind even though similar content in a lesser film would likely have me rolling my eyes.

The film received three Oscar nominations for acting: Whoopi Goldberg (Best Actress), Oprah Winfrey (Best Supporting Actress) and Margaret Avery (Best Supporting Actress). I think that Goldberg and Winfrey were certainly deserving and Danny Glover was unaccountably stiffed.

As already mentioned, Spielberg didn't receive a Best Director nomination for his efforts. Such an omission beggars belief, since Spielberg's direction here is top-notch. I'm not especially crazy about Quincy Jones's score but it's not below average by any means.

In the end, the story is a satisfying one, well-told by a master film-maker working from Pulitzer Prize-winning material. Give it a try and you'll probably be as baffled as I am about how it could be so poorly treated on Oscar night.

Sentiment: positive
(spoiler warning) I seem to keep giving this guy his last chance. Strange how an action hero who once was keeps attracting an audience. Anyway, this movie is about a character (Seagal) being kind of a mysterious rough-neck hero. That's it.

Next.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie yesterday on a public service channel. They had advertised it as an awful movie, and so I was drawn to see it, and I was not let down.

A group of 18-19 year old go to an excavation site at an old viking castle in Denmark, to try to uncover the myth of the Berserker vikings. Strange things happens: something is in the forest, and people start disappearing.

The main thing about this movie that really bothers me, is that the story is supposed to take place in Denmark, where I happen to live. There were so many places in the movie where the Hollywood-style overlapped danish reality. It really made the acting and drama look ridiculous in my eyes.

You never see the characters interact with any of their surroundings. Its feels like a mini-Hollywood in Denmark, and it takes away the credibility of the movie. When at one point you hear someone speak "old danish", it sounds exactly like modern day Swedish. Really bad research, considering the director is from Denmark.

The characters in the movie used GPS and maps, and that's really funny, since Denmark is about the size of your backyard. Nomatter where you are, there is never more than 50 km to the sea, and 500 meters to civilization. And if you are at a castle, there are going to be tourists everywhere. We see a lot of overviews of forests in the movie, and sometimes, we see what appears to be North American vegetation(?) The story did not exactly appeal to me, maybe because the acting was so bad. When the characters see the bog creatures for the first time, they are not even scared. I guess their acting skills were insufficient to display realistic emotions. At the end, there is an unexpected twist, but it didn't impress me, since I didn't really care.

The bog creatures are cheap, but they had the potential to be scary. Unfortunately, they fail, since we get a good look at them standing in the forest when the characters arrive at the castle. Also, there are no really scary scenes, since the Bog Creatures are mostly just standing around.

Anyway, conclusion: Disregarding the facts, the movie is your typical B-horror flick. I guess people from other countries can enjoy it more. As long as you are unaware of reality, it doesn't matter. Just like I think of USA as one big action movie set, everyone else can think of Denmark as a forest with a castle.. and some living-dead people in a bog..

Sentiment: negative
First, they ruin it with the uniquely bad animation quality, then, they get voices that sound nothing like the original. They make sooo many movie mistakes. When Sasha is singing in Count Me Out, the drummer disappears and then reappears, Itchy's shirt keeps changing color, his hat keeps changing position, one of the bridge is white, everyone in the background appears fat, halos keep changing colors and appearing and disappearing. Even heaven appears different. I don't give a damn if this is a low budget film, they shouldn't cut corners on animation. They completely ruined the first ADGTH. The only good thing about this movie was the soundtrack.

Sentiment: negative
This Is Pretty Funny. "Saturday The 12th", a?... Great Work... I Laughed Every Minute of the movie... This Is Like "Scary Movie" for the 1980's. great STUDENT BODIES-styled gags...

Too Bad This Isn't On Video... But You Can Still Watch It on FLIX...

Sentiment: negative
Having read Diamond's book, I was slightly disappointed in the series, but all in all, it is quite informative. Reading the other comments, it is comforting to know that the 'culture warriors' are hard at work, seeing 'attacks' on 'Western Civilization' under every rug.

Is Diamond a little preachy ? Sure. Like a lot of academics, he sees his theory as the most important thing ever. He uses the phrase 'guns, germs, and steel' at seemingly every opportunity during the series. We get it, after about the first 10 minutes.

Is Diamond a little simplistic (in the series) ? Sure. The part about the Spaniards in South America is particularly amusing, condensing some very long, complicated history down to 'smallpox, swords, and horses', wrapping up the whole conquest of South America in about 15 minutes. But the point remains valid - these things did in fact contribute (but not totally define) the reasons for the Spaniard's success against the established cultures.

Is he preaching *against* Western Civilization in any way ? Nope. Not a word. Not to my ear. All he says is that luck played a large part in determining which cultures advanced more quickly, *not* that luck is the only reason.

In the end, if you're looking for something that validates your own sense of superiority, then this series is not for you. But if you are interested in all of the factors than influence how societies succeed or fail, this series presents a useful interpretation of the historical evidence.

Sentiment: positive
"Don't Change Your Husband" is another soap opera comedy from Producer/Director Cecil B. De Mille. It is notable as the first of several films he made starring Gloria Swanson. I guess you could also call it a sequel of sorts to his "Old Wives For New" (1918).

James (Elliot Dexter) and Leila (Swanson) Porter are a forty-ish couple where James has gone to seed and become slovenly and lazy. he has a penchant for smelly cigars and eating raw onions. He takes his wife for granted. Leila tries to get him to straighten out to no avail.

One night at a dinner party at the Porters, Leila meets the dashing Schyler Van Sutphen (now there's a moniker), the playboy nephew of socialite Mrs. Huckney (Sylvia Ashton). She invites Leila to her home for the weekend to make James "miss her". Once there Schyler begins to put the moves on her, promising her pleasure, wealth and love, if she will leave her husband and go with him. The sequences involving Leila's imagining this promised new life are lavishly staged and forecast De Mille's epic costume drams later in his career.

Leila, bored with her marriage and her disinterested husband, divorces James and marries the playboy. James ultimately realizes that he has lost the only thing that mattered to him and begins to mend his ways. He shaves off his mustache, works out, shuns onions and re-acquires some manners.

Meanwhile, all is not rosy with Leila's new marriage. Schyler it seems likes to gamble and has taken up with the gold digging Nanette (aka Tootsie, or some such name) (Julia Faye). Schyler loses all of his money and steals Leila's diamond ring to cover his losses.

One fateful day, Leila meets the "new" James and is taken by the changes in him. James drives her home and becomes aware of her situation and.................................................

This film marked the beginning of Gloria Swanson's rise to super stardom in a career that would rival that of Mary Pickford. Barely 20 years of age, she had begun her career in Mack Sennett two reel comedies as a teen ager. Elliot Dexter was almost 50 at this time but he and Swanson make a good team, although it's hard to imagine anyone tiring of the lovely Miss Swanson as is the case in this film.

Dexter and Sylvia Ashton had appeared in the similar "Old Wives For New" where the wife had gone to seed and the husband was wronged.

Also in the cast are De Mille regulars Theodore Roberts as a bishop and Raymond Hatton as a gambler.

Sentiment: positive
This is how movies are supposed to be made: a fascinating setting; characters about whom you come to care deeply; writing and editing that move the plot efficiently and build suspense. This is a wonderful film -- deeply moving without being sentimental. Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
Chuck Jones's 'Odor-able Kitty' is the cartoon that introduced Pepe Le Pew to the world sort of. There are a few key differences between the Pepe we know and love (or hate, in the case of some people) and the character in this cartoon. For one, the disguised cat who Pepe amorously pursues in 'Odor-able Kitty' is distinctly male. Also, Pepe is exposed as a fraud whose real name is Henry at the cartoon's climax, his French accent dropping away when his wife and family turn up. Pepe is not even the lead character here, the focus favouring the put-upon cat who disguises himself as a skunk to scare off his enemies. For the most part, the storyline largely follows the usual format of a Pepe Le Pew cartoon but Pepe's aggressive courtship is lacking the usual wisecracks and straight to camera addresses that make him such a great character. He is also not nearly as handsome as he would become and rather awkwardly animated. In fact, 'Odor-able Kitty' is a fairly ugly and clumsy looking cartoon all round. Its main source of appeal comes from its concept which was original at this stage before it became the template for every Pepe Le Pew cartoon that followed. This subsequent development has robbed 'Odor-able Kitty' of any impact whatsoever and to modern viewers it just looks like a rather dull Pepe Le Pew short with a weird surprise ending. As a child, I hated Pepe Le Pew. As an adult, able to appreciate his more sophisticated, verbal and risqué humour, I love the character and most of his cartoons. 'Odor-able Kitty' makes me feel like a child again!

Sentiment: negative
This is a superb movie, suitable for all but the very youngest, though accessibility for younger people was marred (at least in the print which I saw) by the use of some unfortunate choice of English sub-titling! For much of the film it is almost impossible to guess in which time-period it is set - there is no modern technology shown, not even the ubiquitous Chinese bicycle, just a drab, almost monochrome, everyday life, against which is contrasted the dazzling display of the Sezuan Opera and of celebratory fireworks. Even when a group of soldiers refer to their imminent departure for a theatre of war, this could still be any time in the past 150 years.

But then we briefly see a motor car - late 30s, early 40s style - and we realise that we are watching a China on the verge of huge upheavals, and that much of the world we are seeing is about to be swept away in the cataclysm of World War 2 and the Communist revolution.

Which makes the central character's desire to adhere to old customs and traditions all the more poignant.

But the film also raises issues which are of vital importance even today, both within China and in other parts of the world: the inequality between boys and girls, men and women; the trade, for various purposes, in young children; corruption in society; injustice; the importance of friendship.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this film; but I don't think so! I also think that it is a scandal that films of this calibre are often not shown in the United Kingdom, whilst dross is passed off as quality material.

But don't get me started on that...

Sentiment: positive
My interpretation is that the term 'distant' is used in the sense of the opposite of 'warm'; people who are not warm toward others. The film reminds me of the teachings of the Dalai Lama in 'The Art of Happiness' where his main point is that the key to happiness is connecting with others. Not only are the characters in the film insular, but they are also humorless, charmless, shy, quiet and unfriendly. These characteristics appear to prevent them, amongst other things, from forming and enjoying relationships and being able to talk about and deal with their problems. And as a result they are terribly unhappy. I see it as a strong vindication of the Dalai Lama's teaching (I'm not a Buddist by the way). If you are one of the people who thinks that their behavior is a natural response to living in a large city then I think you may be right but I recommend the Dalai Lama's book. City life need not be like this.

I can see why some people found it boring - it does drag a bit in places and the characters are not particularly likable. And it does contrast to Lost In Translation where the insular characters are much more likable and do connect with one another even though they don't connect with people generally.

Sentiment: positive
for a lot of time I was looking forward to see this movie, here in Latinamerica japanese or any oriental movies have no distribution in theaters, we can find some of those movies in some underground stores, and I just found Avalon, I was expecting something good, but the only good thing in this movie is the first scene, the rest of the movie is boring and senseless, just plain stupid, with a lot of useless scenes, and a boring story. I am wasting my time even writing about this film. Sorry but is the truth.

Sentiment: negative
Sydney Lumet, although one of the oldest active directors, still got game! A few years ago he shot "Find me guilty", a proof to everyone that Vin Diesel can actually act, if he gets the opportunity and the right director. If he had retired after this movie (a true masterpiece in my eyes), no one could have blamed him. But he's still going strong, his next movie already announced for 2009.

But let's stay with this movie right here. The cast list is incredible, their performance top notch. The little nuances in their performances, the "real" dialogue and/or situations that evolve throughout the movie are just amazing. The (time) structure of the movie, that keeps your toes the whole time, blending time-lines so seamlessly, that the editing seems natural/flawless. The story is heightened by that, although even in a "normal" time structure, it would've been at least a good movie (Drama/Thriller). I can only highly recommend it, the rest is up to you! :o)

Sentiment: positive
Saw the movie last night w/o knowing anything about it (nothing else out seemed interesting and I had a Buffalo connection to this movie - UB grad). It was a very enjoyable movie. Liked the pace (it picks up after a slow beginning) and story. Well written plot and good character development and relationships. Highly recommend it to anyone who likes to see movies that have interesting stories. Found myself talking about this movie afterwards over a few beers - most discussions don't last more than a few minutes.

Sentiment: positive
This film had no huge stars in it, but did have a very good cast filled with excellent supporting actors AND Gene Tierney before she became a big star. With George Sanders, Reginald Gardner, Harry Carey, Bruce Cabot, Jospeh Calleia and Cederic Hardwicke, you'd expect more from the film than it actually delivered. Most of this, I suspect, is because of a second-rate script, as director Henry Hathaway was a competent and well-established man at the helm.

The film is set in East Africa during WWII--just before the Americans entered the war. The Brits are trying to control their African colonies while subversive Nazi elements are trying to stir up trouble among the locals. One of the white men in the film is a double-dealer--working for the destruction of the British Empire! But, lovely Tierney, playing a sultan's daughter(!), is out to help save the day for good ol' Britain.

American film makers have long sided with the Empire and the 1930s and 40s saw a plethora of pro-empire films. Nowadays, with changed sensibilities, the notion of seeing the happy black natives dying for Queen and country seems ridiculous--and it would be hard to root for either side! Still, in its day, this propaganda piece was effective in drumming up support for the British--though when seen today, the film suffers from a long-winded script and silly casting. The one bright moment in the film is the final showdown between George Sanders and the enemy agent. Too bad after such a potent scene the film just seemed to talk and talk--losing some of its punch.

Sentiment: negative
I really wanted to like this movie, because it is refreshingly different from the hordes of everyday horror movie clones, and I appreciate that the filmmakers are trying for something original. Unfortunately, the plot just didn't hold together and none of the characters were likable enough for me to really care about them or their fates.

Visually, The Toybox was pretty interesting. The director took a lot of somewhat risky moves, like adding in little bits of (Flash-looking) animation in parts and really cheesing up some of the special effects (such as the light from a certain amulet). Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn't, but he deserves kudos for the attempt, and the cinematography was generally of high quality.

Unfortunately, when this same approach of throwing lots of things at the wall to see what sticks was applied to the plot, the results were not very good. The film never really finds a tone that it likes, moving schizophrenically from black comedy to family soap opera to 80's witchcraft flick to childhood nostalgia to embattled-family slasher. Taken on their own, bits and pieces of each of these elements work fairly well, but nothing ever coheres into a satisfying whole. Besides that, large bits of the plot are never really explained. I'm not one who likes to have everything spoon-fed to me, and I like movies that leave things up to the audience to decide, but the parts that are left out from The Toybox just seem like they either ran out of money before they could explain them or they didn't really think things through to begin with.

I look forward to the director's next project, since I think there is a lot of talent lurking under the surface here, but I can't really recommend The Toybox on its own merits.

Sentiment: negative
A film that is so much a 30's Warners film in an era when each studio had a particular look and style to their output, unlike today where simply getting audiences is the object.

Curitz was one of the quintessential Warners house directors working with tight economy and great efficiency whilst creating quality, working methods that were very much the requirements of a director at Warners, a studio that was one of the "big five" majors in this era producing quality films for their large chains of theatres.

Even though we have a setting of the upper classes on Long Island there is the generic Warners style embedded here with a narrative that could have been "torn from the headlines". Another example is the when the photographers comment on the girls legs early in the film and she comments that "They're not the trophies" gives the film a more working mans, down to earth feel, for these were the audiences that Warners were targeting in the great depression. (ironically Columbia and Universal were the two minors under these five majors until the 50's when their involvement in television changed their fortunes - they would have made something like this very cheaply and without the polish and great talent) Curtiz has created from an excellent script a film that moves along at a rapid pace whilst keeping the viewer with great camera angles and swift editing.

Thank heavens there is no soppy love interest sub-plot so the fun can just keep rolling along.

Sentiment: positive
If you like rap or hip-hop, watch this movie, although it's funny if you don't get the references, as a straight comedy.

Haven't seen much of the much hyped CB4, but what I did see didn't have the heart that this little stormer has.

Haven't heard from the people involved since, which is a surprise. The film is very similar to Spinal Tap, which is no bad thing, and I think a lot of the dialogue, while priceless in Tap is funnier here, probably because I'm more into rap than rock theses days, so my own judgment does cloud that point.

The rap songs are funny as hell, and it's basically spot the reference for most of the film, not all of them are in-your-face, which means the physical comedy and the one-liners get priority over the take-offs.

Great fun, one to watch twice if there ever was a movie.

Sentiment: positive
Hollywood does it again. Lots of money, no creativity. I'm sure the writers were on something other than oxygen when they wrote this one. Based on the previews, I thought that this would be a funny movie. But if you are not up on the latest stupid pop culture then you'll miss most of the silly humor in this movie. Why waste your time. You can sit on a log doing nothing and have more fun than this movie will provide.



Sentiment: negative
This movie has received a lot of bad press from people who don't understand what it was meant to be. One must understand that this movie was never meant to be taken seriously. It's camp, along the same lines as "Army of Darkness." AoD was silly, but funny and bad in a good way. "House of the Dead" fails to be "good bad.".

There are qualities inherent in good campy movies, most important of those being believable fantasy. One needs to believe what's happening in a movie to see the humor when a situation goes incredibly wrong. Without boundaries, the movie becomes absurd. HotD lacks any believability.

Worse still, HotD brings nothing new to the genre, and repeats the same plot twists and character reactions that many horror movies inevitably start to exhibit. For example, all too often, horror movies fall into the trap where the main characters find love amongst the gore and destruction. I don't know about you, but when I'm being chased by zombies, I wanna make out with a hot chick. Believe it? No? Then, you probably won't believe it when the characters start sucking each other's faces in this movie.

Beyond the obvious issues that plague this movie like so many other horror movies, Uwe Boll elected to add scenes from the video game of zombies being shot, randomly whenever a character shoots a zombie in the movie. Not only is there no clear rationale for this artistic choice, but it distracts one from an already unbelievable plot. Further, there are frequent and numerous examples of bad acting, and seemingly no attempts by the director to guide the actors' reactions to events... leaving the movie with no redeeming qualities. Avoid...

Sentiment: negative
I don't think I can add much more to what has already been said about this film. However, I can offer a small recollection from seeing ST-V in the theater. In the last (dreadful) scene, as the camera is pulling out from the camping shot and it seems likely that the credits will start rolling at any second, the audience seemed to rise in unison. Normally, for a movie like this, at least -some- die-hard fans stay to watch right up until the final disclaimer. As the people filed out, I remember hearing no laughing and cheerful banter, only low murmurs.

I remember reading a movie review in the local paper in which the critic said that it was so bad that only Trek fans would like it. What an idiot. The fans were the ones most apt to tear it apart first!

Favorite worst scene: Target shooting on a Voyager space probe, through a periscope no less! Space must be a much smaller frontier than we thought.

Sentiment: negative
I couldnt believe how well this kid did on screen, you will completely forget that they are actors and loose yourself in the movie. It is like watching home movies with a twist. I recomend this to everyone. Highly.

Sentiment: positive
This is an awesome classic monster flick from the 50's! I just love the look of the 50's in general like the cars and the music. Anyway, I love the way the blob looks. I love when the everyone is at the late night horror flick at the theater and the blob comes in and crashes the party. Another thing I love about it is that it takes place all in one night, just like Halloween II.

When Steve and Jane are making out, they see a meteor fall from space. Inside the meteor is the blob. Whenever the blob consumes a person, it grows bigger and bigger. They try to convince the people of the town about the blobby monster, but no one believes them until later. Can anything stop this blobby creature? I highly recommend THE BLOB!!!

Sentiment: positive
I first saw the movie a couple of years ago and was totally and utterly impressed but its sensuality. It is one of the most touching films I have ever seen, though it might appear a little bit pretentious and artificial - too much beautiful, if you will. Anyway, one thing is for sure - the camera man has done a great job - each picture deserves to be cut off the film and displayed as a separate peace of art, comparable to the Chirico's or Bernard Buffet's paintings.

The music forms a perfect background for the story, especially U2's one played between the first and the second novels at the beach scene. As for the casting - I cannot be objective since I like Sophie Marceau and Jean Renaue very much and cannot add more to the praising comments of others.

However, the very fact that many people (critics and those sophisticated in cinema) criticized the movie made me watch it with a more critical eye for the second time. No doubt, the setting is splendid and the casting is gorgeous. But this is somehow not enough to make a comprehensive and cohesive film. The second novel (when Sophie Marceau tells her story to Malcovic is somehow superficial and does not tell much about the motivations of the people involved - was it only about shooting a beautiful and sensual love scene with the naked Marceau or what?). Apparently, it does not add anything to the idea of the movie and even the husky voice of Malcovic is being unable to link it to the main plot.

Other stories are more justified and are really beautifully shot, which indulges many of the logic fallacies within them. The scene when Jean Reneau is overlooking the city through the huge window of his apartment on the top of the high building is absolutely incredible. The feeling of moist air and fine haze, which is being spread by the first "Ferrera" scene can literally be sensed through the screen. No doubt, Antonioni is a great master of shades and semi-shades. My favorite novel is the last one - the most romantic, deep and meaningful - I guess that it the most Antonioni-like one in the whole movie - almost a parable.Probably, the overall positive impression from the movie is mainly due to the last one shot somewhere in a small Ghotic Italian town, with its winding narrow streets and crooked pavements, fountains with the l'eau potable and monumental cathedrals... It was laconic but really touching.

I hope that my impressions and comments on the movie, however chaotic they are would motivate somebody to spend an evening watching it (it works better with the home theater, having somebody caring by your side, than in the movie theater). Enjoy.

I beg your pardon for the imperfect English and any possible misspellings

Sentiment: positive
This movie is a complete and utter waste of time, one of the worst films I've ever seen. And coming from me, that is definitely saying something. In fact, I wish I could have given it negative stars instead of just rating it as a pathetic one-star awful.

When I rented this movie, I had an open mind. I find the legend of the chupacabra interesting and I have a fondness for cheesy horror flicks. But I draw the line at this one.

The acting sucked. The lead male gives one of the worst performances ever, looking and sounding unnatural as he delivers his poorly written lines. The lead female gives a slightly more palatable performance, but that really doesn't take much.

The chupacabra... well, considering how low budget this movie must have been, the creature was tolerable. It does, however, look exactly like someone in a mask and body suit. The mask is fairly detailed and might look cool in person, but not so on screen.

Speaking of on screen, you'd think they could have at least used a better camera. It looks like it was shot with a camcorder for crying out loud. Not a very good one, either.

I don't know what whoever wrote this abomination was thinking. The dialog sucks and just... I can't describe what I feel about it. At least not without getting in trouble with the site.

My advice? Avoid this at all costs. It's just not worth it. If it comes on TV and you have nothing else to do or watch, then *find* something else to do or watch. Read a book, listen to music, *anything.* Just don't subject yourself to this. If you do, you cannot say you weren't warned. And for Lord and Lady's sake, don't rent this sucker. It is not worth it, even if you get the chance to rent it for fifty cents. Trust me, I know.

Sentiment: negative
i watched it because my friend said we could try it, when my father asked if we'd watch it. i didn't want to because it was such an old film, how could that be good ? i finally did watch with that friend and my father. my friend and i loved the film. the songs are great, the actors were cool and we were crazy about it. i guess this shows even though it's from dad's time that doesn't mean it can't be a good film. i bought the film not so long after seeing it on TV, i put it on a lot and sang along with the songs. i even watched it with my classmates on my birthday party. it's a nice, good, and sometimes funny film.

if you don't try, you can't say it's bad. even if you think no, i'm not going to watch a film from dad's time. try the first part of the film you can always stop watching if you don't like it. i really recommend it, it's great!!

Sentiment: positive
I wasn't expecting this to be a great movie, but neither was I expecting it to be so awful. I hated the mother character so much I had to turn the channel. I turned it back, hoping it was just one part of the movie, but no. And for the daughter to sit there take being embarrassed, or almost done out of a job, or driven to madness inside her own home? Are you kidding me? I was raised to respect (and even fear) my mother but I'd put her up fast in the nearest hotel if she proved that annoying in MY house. I was expected to follow a set of rules in my mother's house, after all.

I didn't buy any of it. I tried giving it several chances, I really did. Sorry.

Sentiment: negative