DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
No real plot to this one, just a series of short skits acting out some VERY old jokes. I chuckled once or twice in the beginning, much to my chagrin. But even at only 73 minutes this film wears out it's welcome before too long and becomes stale and tedious (with some nudity sprinkled in here and there to keep you awake). Still as bad as this movie is (and that's pretty putrid), it's a comedic gem compared to pretty much ANYthing by Aaron Seltzer & Jason Friedberg (Date movie, Epic movie, Meet the Spartans) Also the song is sadly kind of catchy in a sad way.

Eye Candy: 11 pair of tits, 3 bushes, 3 asses 

My Grade: D 

Code Red DVD Extras: Original trailer for this film; and trailers for "Beyond the Door", "Dead Pit", "the Farmer", "obsessed Ones", "Power Play", "Sole Survivor", & "Wacky Taxi"

Sentiment: negative
"My Blue Heaven" is boring. The plot is insipid; the characterizations and dialogue stink; the musical numbers, while occasionally staged in interesting ways, are not only too often absurd, but also lyrically trite, painfully bright, and emotionally hollow to the core. The leads, Betty Grable and Dan Dailey, are attractive professionals; however, in spite of their every talented effort to uplift the drear and uncompelling material, they fail. David Wayne and Jane Wyatt, for all their demonstrated talent in other projects, are more or less cyphers here.

There's really only one reason to watch "My Blue Heaven". One reason...one star: Mitzi Gaynor, in her film debut. Her total screen time is probably less than ten minutes, but so what? Her pert and promising screen personality, her feline beauty, and her exceptional charisma shine through gloriously and make these minutes the most watchable, memorable, and exciting moments in the entire film. If you would value an opportunity to see a tremendous young talent on the rise, then check out Miss Mitzi Gaynor in "My Blue Heaven."

Incidentally, I scorn (and would urge you to avoid) Drew Casper's manic, obsessive-compulsive DVD commentary for this film. Wordy, digressive, unduly fastidious, frequently ill-timed with what is playing on the screen, and galloping throughout with an excess of nervous energy, his comments are absolutely indigestible.

Sentiment: negative
In yet another case of misleading marketing, this film is included in a 10-movie DVD set called "Women Who Kick Butt", but even in its original cover it seems to promise Shannon Tweed in an action role. Actually, during most of the movie Tweed plays the typical whiny and prissy female character who has to be rescued by the male lead, and even when she's trained in jungle warfare she still has to be dragged around by him! There is one female rebel who is a stronger character, but she's mostly kept in the margins of the movie. The male lead is Reb Brown, and he does have some (unintentionally, I think) funny moments (like when he gets electrocuted). The action scenes are badly directed and poorly acted: some of the stuntmen needed a few lessons on "how to get shot and die convincingly". I suppose if you're in the right mood you can find some things in "Firing Line" to laugh at (at one point, we can hear Tweed speaking but her lips are not moving!), but mostly I was just bored. (*)

Sentiment: negative
Although DiG! was being hailed as being closest to what the music industry is like it is highly fabricated. The director has misled the audience into believing the Brian Jonestown Massacre disappeared off the face of the earth post-'98. And the rivalry between the Dandy Warhols and Jonestown has been milked. The truth of the matter is not really exposed in this film.

That said this film is endlessly quotable and is an interesting watch as we get a look at two groups of very talented musicians creating their art. One of the best things this film has going for it is a unique perspective between the indie music scene and the larger corporate scene.

Recommended mostly for the music and the two fantastic bands.

Sentiment: positive
If I were to rate this movie based solely on the acting/script/production, etc., I would give it one star. All these elements are awful. I can partially forgive this, in light of the film's $250 budget. The movie does contain many entertaining scenes, mostly those of the unintentionally funny variety. Some of these include: a 14-year-old kid stealing and driving a bus, teenage hooligans (one of whom is sporting a Joy Division t-shirt) getting scared away from harassing the film's protagonists by a woman brandishing an obviously fake firearm, and an encounter with a plastic bull's skull in the Arizona desert.

I would have given it 5 stars just for the entertainment value were it not for the presence of that horribly annoying, morally pontificating old granny. I had to dock one star just because of her. Who the *bleep* makes a wedding cake with black frosting, anyhow?

Sentiment: negative
I read the reviews of this movie, and they were generally pretty good so I thought I should see it. I'm a big Francophile and art film lover, but I believe this is yet another case in which the critics make something "arty" or "intellectual" into something it is not. I will be blunt: it contains scenes of sexual perverseness that I never, ever wanted to actually see. Obviously, the piano teacher has some major psychological issues, but I really did not want to see them displayed so graphically. The film is, in essence, disgusting. I mean, when I saw Requiem for a Dream, I was repulsed by the last sort of scene with Jennifer Connelly, but that was not anywhere near the sort of disgust and repulsion I felt during this film.

Sentiment: negative
Until now, the worst movie I had ever seen was Ben & Arthur. You really should check the reviews for that movie instead of this one. The review statistics for this movie have been skewed positive through a relentless and unscrupulous push by some of the people involved in making it, evidence for which is fairly easy to uncover online. At least the people who made Ben & Arthur were honorable enough to let it stand on its own shaky legs, instead of unscrupulously promoting it so suckers like me would buy it.

Everything about this movie is terrible, the script, the story, the casting, the acting, the direction, the photography, the editing, the music... what else goes into a movie? Whatever it is, here it's as bad as it gets. If it weren't so unpleasant it would be ridiculous. I kept watching it thinking it must get better, because I hadn't yet discovered that none of the positive reviews for it are reliable.

It does not take a lot of money to make a great movie, nor does a low budget mean a movie has to be bad. My favorite example of a shoestring-budget masterpiece is Gus Van Sant's amazing Mala Noche, but there are many others. Sideline SecretsDirector's Cut or originalis bad not because the people who made it had no money, but because they had gigantic egos and no talent for anything at all except self-promotion.

Sentiment: negative
This film should have never been made. Honestly, I must admit that before I saw it I had some serious doubts. The director is not a great actress, though she did a lot of movies in Holland, and the young woman who took the main part is a TV-personality with a constant smile on the face and not much self-criticism. The actor who played the other main part I recently saw in Bride Flight and although that film is better, he did not convince me than. To start with the the story, I have not read the novel it is based upon, but the script that underlays the film is something that might have been done with in mind kids having a birthday party on a rainy Sunday afternoon, not someone of the same age as the director who likes to watch a good movie. Something really disturbing were the overdubbed dialogues, it was most of the time spoken out loud. My regards go to the cameraman, at least he tried to make something out of it. It is a pity that the film is edited lousy, if not, some scenes were certainly more credible.

Sentiment: negative
I finally got a chance to settle in and compare the two versions of this film currently going around -- First, the good old scummy, sleazy Embassy VHS print called SCREAMERS, and then a new fully restored Italian DVD by everyone's new favorite media company, No Shame of Italy.

The American adverts about "men turned inside out" is as everyone says, totally misleading, and indicative of a Roger Cormanized take on what otherwise would be a superior fantasy-adventure thriller for grown ups. The complete Italian version is a somewhat sprawling, well designed and deliberately paced take on "Island of Dr. Moreau", and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a sumptuous, handsome Euro Horror outing with a brain, good plotting, character development, location shooting, period costuming and sets, etc.

But I must admit that the 14 year old knucklehead weed puffer still lurking somewhere inside of me got a bigger kick out of the more lurid, sleazy and unkempt Roger Corman version, which has some nice over the top gore, a flashy but preposterous opening segment, and then the bulk of Martino's original film, albeit somewhat abridged to make room for Roger's idea of entertainment. The pacing was somewhat quicker, the shock sequences closer together, and you see just as much of Ms. Bach's fantastic form as you do in the extended Italian version.

I still don't have much of an idea about what the specific story concerns though: there are a number of plot twists and incidental characters that were somewhat hard to keep track of. A local voodoo subplot didn't help much, and it's funny how everything culminates in just another fistfight between the noble castaway prisoner and the mad scientist ... Perhaps a few more viewings are in order. I will say this: Fans of the movie should avail themselves of one of these PAL imports and take a look at what is actually a movie rather than just another murky old home video -- the widescreen shot compositions once again reveal that Martino had an eye for filling his screen with interesting stuff. Nobody gets their heads ripped off like in the SCREAMERS print, but it's still interesting stuff, and once again proof that while his standards may have been pretty much confined to the area around the gutter, Roger Corman new good trashy fun when he had it made for him, and side by side these are actually better movies than they had to be.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
I consider this movie a masterpiece, but it took me at least 4 o 5 times to see it, so as to realize what a great movie it was. First, it describes a face of WW2 that we don't usually see in Hollywood movies. In particular, German soldiers, army and the Nazi government are shown more "humanized". One of the facts that impressed me most was the mention, by the end of the movie, of a murder that took place in a forest in the last 20's... that forest is the place where the final chapters of Berlin Alexanderplatz take place: those are the woods where Reinhold kills Mieze. Another clue for those who like the details, is the representation of doors. Fassbinder is obsessed with the changes in people each time they walk across a door, or a door is opened. Many doors are shown in the screen, opened and closed. And the characters change in their personality, their acts, etc any time that happens. Have you noticed that?

Sentiment: positive
If you haven't seen this obscure little charmer, you should seek it out. It is the story of a bumbling, wartime Sad Sack (Fred MacMurray) who is listed 4-F each time he attempts to join any branch of the military. He finds a magic lamp which of course contains a genie (Gene Sheldon), but the genie is even more bumbling than MacMurray is, sending him across time to serve in all the wrong times and places than the one he wants. It is cute, cheerful, and pure fluff, and you can't help but like it. The plots is much like a Disney film, particularly since the two stars (MacMurray and Sheldon) both made numerous Disney films in the 50's and 60's, although not together. Needless to say, it all ends well for everyone, and the viewer goes away feeling pretty good.

Sentiment: positive
The Sentinel represents everything about the soul-lessness of Hollywood and the saddening lack of imagination present in so many movies these days. I cannot possibly think of one good thing about it, it's all so generic, so factory-made and so lazy assembled that it really only exists as an infomercial on how to make money from the unsuspecting, undeserving public.

A plot about a Secret Service Agent planning to assassinate the Prez could well be entertaining. If handled by a good director or caring cast that is. Douglas is the one who is framed. Basinger is the First Lady, with whom he is having an affair (an undeveloped, unresolved plot contrivance). Sutherland is the best pal who believes his guilty because there would be no movie if he didn't. And Longoria is nothing. A woman with a fortune of Maybelline and...that's it. I guess there are less requirements for women when entering the Secret Service. As usual in a film like this the role of the Prez himself is nothing more than a tool, a token and is very badly written.

Clark Johnson's, he who gave us the equally as pathetic SWAT back in 2003, mechanical direction lacks any kind of signature and has all the visual sophistication of a cheap TV-movie. Douglas, Basinger and Sutherland look incredibly bored and phone-in their performances from afar. Eva Longoria, the most over-exposed woman of the 21st Century, is basically only in this to attract to the Desperate Housewives audience. Her role is 100% pointless and she does absolutely nothing to further the plot or add to character development. She barely has 2 lines to rub together. A truly shameless marketing ploy.

If you're a glutton for punishment then don't let me stop you. But it IS time and money you won't be getting back.

Sentiment: negative
Well, here we have a zombie movie that perhaps isn't even being much of a zombie movie. The entire movie is set in a zombie-plagued near future but yet the movie does very little with this concept. Instead it focuses on a zombie hunter who is trying to get revenge and his money back from a group of other bounty hunters. What good is money anyway when almost the entire world has gone to hell and towns are mostly desolate. And why pay money to people for killing zombies in the first place. As if people would not go on to kill this dangerous threatening monsters when they are not getting paid.

Needless to say that the story for "The Quick and the Undead" is far from a tight one. It of course also isn't being filled with the most logical and interesting moments, characters or dialog.

Still it's not a completely horrible movie. It certainly ain't as bad as some people try to make you believe it is. It's a rather good looking one, or rather said the movie at least doesn't have a cheap look over it. It's effects may be a bit overused but nevertheless they are quite good looking, as are the make-up effects as well.

Still the movie was not what I hoped of it. Its title might suggest that the movie is set in the wild, wild west, during the days of the cowboys but its title is just a misleading one, no doubt picked to cash in on it. I fell for it, expecting this movie to be a combination of a western and a gory zombie-horror-flick.

For the fans of the zombie movies this movie will mostly be a disappointment to watch. It of course adds nothing new to the genre but it also doesn't has enough of the genre itself in it to be considered a good one to watch.

Not totally unwatchable but also far from a recommendable one.

4/10

Sentiment: negative
Not one of the better pokemon movies.

Two legendary pokemon come into the story. You do get to see how strong Celebi can be, though he turns evil first.

Suicune also makes an appearance, he didn't seem that powerful.

The Marauder didn't have many strong pokemon at all, except for that taranitar? Some fight scenes with his pokemon may have made it better.

Ash and Pikachu meet the much younger Professor Oak, though they don't realise it. Misty I was thinking had it at the end but she didn't get close. I saw this in the credits.

Don't expect much here, the worst of the series so far.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie as a child and it broke my heart! No other story had such a unfinished ending... I grew up on many great anime movies and this was one of my favourites, because it was so unusual - a story about unfairness, and cruelty, and loneliness, and life, and choices that can't be undone, and the need for others. Chirin is made alone when the Wolf kills his mother, but the Wolf is alone, too, when Chirin follows him into the mountain. The Wolf doesn't kill the lamb, even though each night he says "maybe I'll eat you tomorrow." The tape of it I have is broken and degraded from age and use. I will repair it and watch the movie again someday and cry just as hard as I did as a child. Stories like this, with this depth and feeling, and this intricacy of meaning, are very rare. It is a sad story, but I've never encountered any catharsis more beautifully made. I am glad I have seen this movie, and I'm glad I saw it as a child.

Sentiment: positive
This film is, in short, a cinematic masterpiece. The film is moved along brilliantly by intense images that deeply move the sensitive viewer. The film opens during the Spanish Civil War as a group of children seek their revenge on another child. In fact, they are acting out in their world a version of what they have witnessed in the adult world around them. Later we meet three of these children again as adults at a sanatorium. Here we see what life has wrought on each of them. One is a reclusive sexually repressed patient. Another man is a hustler who has become ill. The third child, a young lady, has become a nun and is serving at the sanatorium. This film is an allegory about the effect of violence on the psyche.

This film has a climax that is definitely not for the squeamish members of the viewing audience but it is logical as well as profoundly moving. The acting is excellent and the script is quite well written. There is a musical score that provides an undercurrent of dread throughout this film. This is not a film for thrill seekers but a film for a thoughtful audience.

Sentiment: positive
Basically, this movie is one of those rare movies you either hate and think borders on suicide as the next best thing to do, rather than having to sit through it for two hours. Or, as in my case, you see it as a kult hit, one of those movies wherein the humour, the plot, the acting, is actually very hidden but for those of us willing to go looking for it, trusting the director well, the reward is: U laugh your A.. of !! The fact that U have to find the things mentioned above, actually makes the movie even more funny, because u get the impression the director isn't even aware of how funny his movie is, which doesn't seem likely and therein lies the intelligence at the helm of this magnificient project called : Spaced Invaders !!

Sentiment: positive
I would not like to comment on how good the movie was or what were the flaws as I am not a professional film critic and I do not have enough knowledge of making movies. What i do know is that making this kind of a movie in your very first shot is a big achievement and I would like to congratulate the Director for that. However, in some reviews, that i have read, critics have complained that Hiralal's relationship with his brothers was not highlighted, and his siblings were completely erased from the story. Now i would really like to raise a point here that as the name of the movie suggests, it is not a movie about Hiralal's brothers, it is a movie on the relationship of Mahatma Gandhi and his son Hiralal Gandhi, nothing more nothing less. If we start complaining about some characters being kept out of action in the movie, it would be a bit unfair because these characters don't fit in the picture, no matter how relevant they were in real life. So i think it would be better if we stick to the main idea and stop satisfy a critic in ourselves.

Enjoy!!!!

Sentiment: positive
I attended one of the premieres last night and have the following observations: 

1. Just because you've directed a ton of music videos DOES NOT make you qualified to make movies. The movie had an overabundance of lingering shots that made no sense, horrible angles, and terrible lighting. The editing didn't help this mess at all. When "Dixie" shows up late for the memorial service her mother remarks about her hand but it's never clear what the heck she's talking about.

2. The plot had promise, but the script was thin and full of Ford Truck sized holes. We never get to understand what drives the characters, what's really behind the conflicts they all have with each other or exactly how they resolve them. Sixteen years of distance is wiped out in 4 days seemingly by magic. The deep conversations were marred by stupid clichés. (In fact, the whole town was one big cliché of southern life.) Half the audience groaned when Toby drawled "Ya got my blood runnin through your veins gurl"...and we were treated to that insipid line not once, but TWICE! The revelations were yawn inducing, and the dramatic confessions boiled down to "I was stupid and stubborn".

3. The acting was okay considering the wreck of a script they had to work with. Toby was dark and brooding most of the film, but when he smiled and lightened up he was charming. It's a shame he didn't have more screen time like that. Kelly Preston's acting chops are pretty rusty and it shows. Lindsay Haun is talented and it's certainly not her fault the writers made her character so unlikeable in the beginning that you don't blame her father for not coming to look for her. Burt Reynolds and Tess Harper were able to make more of this movie but still looked more or less lost. (And indeed, their characters get lost in this film!) 

4. If you're a Toby fan you'll love the songs. But often the movie felt like a scene was forced in just so they could feature one of his songs--or the artists on his record label. For instance, the movie's official love song is "Crash Here Tonight". You'd think that would play around a tender love scene, but nope...we hear about 45 seconds of it as he's heading to a memorial service. It was as if they said "well, we gotta use this song somewhere". The song "Broken" is haunting and the best thing to come out of this movie.

In summary...a promising plot never fully develops and the movie is horribly uneven as it forceably tries to be a vehicle for Toby Keith's music and product placement for Ford Trucks. It goes from being about people rebuilding broken bridges to trying to be about the power of music but the story is told so poorly that both points get lost in this overgrown music video. I like Toby and really wanted to like "Broken Bridges" but the people he counted on to make this movie let him down and deserve one of his famous boots you know where.

Sentiment: negative
The plot is tight. The acting is flawless. The directing, script, scenery, casting are all well done. I watch this movie frequently, though I don't know what it is about the whole thing that grabs me. See it and drop me a line if you can figure out why I like it so much.

Sentiment: positive
This was a watershed event in my movie watching life. I went to see this in the theater when it came out. I was completely amazed at just how bad it was. Movies like this make you wonder who put the money up and who owed whom a favor - a very, very large favor. The special effects are absolutely first grade level, as in any first grader could have done them. Toy rubber bats on strings with no attempt to hide the strings, arrows that appear to be drawn on the film and look to be the shape of an arrow you'd find on a street sign, and a laughable story line. Ed Wood made masterpieces compared to "Conquest". Every film student should see this thing just so they'll know the very definition of a bad movie.

Sentiment: negative
I would highly recommend this movie! And I certainly shall be personally recommending it to my friends and family here and abroad! It was with excited anticipation, that I have just pre-ordered it online, I enjoyed it so much! It is not out until February/March 2008, but it will be well worth the wait! But first go and see it in the cinema if you can. There is nothing quite like the Cinema-Experience of a cinema-made movie! Insist that your local cinema puts it on! I went to see 'Seachd, the Inaccessible Pinacle' tonight, down here in London, and was really impressed. It is a marvel: a truly beautiful film set in the Scottish Highlands: you will laugh, you will cry, you will be moved in may different ways, you will be intrigued, and as the story within the stories is revealed, you will be amazed at that revelation.

This movie is in Scottish Gaelic with English Subtitles, but do not let that detract you if you are not a speaker of the Gaelic: I am just starting, and my son does not, nor did many people there tonight, and it did not spoil it for us by any manner of means! Superlatives do not suffice! The photography is superb - there is no CGI here, and the movie is all the better for that- here you have true photography! The script is so skilfully and subtly written. The many-layered plot weaves the magic art of the ancient storytellers. The music is at times rousing, at times haunting, but always adding to the atmospheric ambiance. And the acting? ... it is to behold ... and the actors?... they the true weavers of this delightful yet profound film, particularly the two main actors, 'Padruig-the-young' and 'Padruig-the-elder' (A true bard, if ever there was!), who both carried a very heavy load! And the Direction? Well watch out Richard! And the Producer, responsible for raising funding, hiring key personnel, and arranging for distributors? A task well done! I hope that you will make sure that distribution goes out to our communities abroad! And the Gaelic community? Uill, without you it could not have happened! We were told that this movie was made on a low budget, but you would not know it, and I think it might well be because, for what they might have lacked in money, they more than made up for with the richness of the heart, and the warmth and co-operation of the local Scottish Gaelic community.

A heartfelt thanks to all concerned in the making, and the sponsoring, of 'Seachd' - Mòran taing! (Many thanks!) From the Gaels to the World! From the World to the Gaels!

Sentiment: positive
This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!. All the characters are decent i guess, but the story is so so, however Jackie Chan is still amazing in this even if he did look bored. Jackie and Danny Aiello had zero chemistry together, and it was very boring a lot of times, however the finale was above average and managed to be fairly entertaining, and had some good stunts!. I have not yet seen the Hong Kong version, however i'm sure it's better then this dud, plus the twist is very predictable!. It's really lifeless and bland, and i don't blame Jackie for not looking happy in this, and if he didn't star in this it would have been unbearable and completely unwatchable. The opening is supposed to be memorable, but it's nothing i haven't seen before and done better at that, and i thought the whole film was rather lazy and could have been an awesome film if Jackie had control of it!, plus i really didn't root for any of the characters. This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film, and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!, not recommended even for Die hard Jackie Chan fans. The Direction is terrible!. James Glickenhaus does a terrible job here, with extremely bland camera work, bad angles, and keeping the film boring for the most part throughout. The Acting is so so. Jackie Chan is AMAZING as always, however he is not his usual energetic self, and looks bored and Ps*ed off throughout the film, had zero chemistry with Danny Aiello, and i really don't blame him either! (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Danny Aiello is OK here, as Jackie's partner, but his character is a bit of an ass, and he had zero chemistry with Jackie, he did OK i guess. Roy Chiao is decent as the main villain, but was just going through the motions and wasn't all that menacing, he still is damn cool though. Rest of the cast are average at best. Overall Not worth your time or money. *1/2 out of 5

Sentiment: negative
I realise it's very hard to live up to the first The 10 Commandments movie (which was grandiose and personally not a Charleton Heston fan) but wow...this movie/mini-series was disappointing. Even the animated The Prince of Egypt was better.

The one thing that threw me off was Ramses. Compared to Yul Brynner's version, Paul Rhys's version just seemed so weak and un-Pharoh like. The acting really wasn't that great. For a modern adaptation, I was expecting something better. It just didn't look as stunning visually as the first one. I guess they were running on a tight budget or something. There's an occasional voice-over narrator which I found strange and unnecessary. It also broke up the flow of the story. And um...God's voice/lines were kinda weird.

Sentiment: negative
Joe was first released in the US in the summer of 1970. Despite respectable notices, reasonable box office and an Oscar nom, it vanished shortly afterwards and remained forgotten about throughout the 1980's, before being enthusiastically reappraised, somewhat unjustly, in the US in the late 90's. Thanks to this lengthy unavailability, its reputation has gone on to see it placed (inexplicably) alongside the likes of Michael Winner's original Death Wish. Although revenge is a theme, a film about vigilantism this most definitely is not.

The plot isn't worth synopsizing. Its a flabby, hammy and bizarrely stagey ramble about an accidental murder and the unlikely relationship that blossoms out of it. That relationship and the largely class-based quirks of its two leads are exaggerated into ridiculous caricature; these two, and their situation, bear absolutely no relation to reality.

Almost everything about the film is cantankerous and begrudgingly antiquated, which makes the whole thing completely fascinating. Hippies are depicted as snide and exclusive misanthropes, hard drugs either make you sleep or dance around maniacally with lipstick on your face, and most young women are prepared to have sex with strangers in exchange for marijuana at the drop of a fly. Its very much a film of the 60's rather than the 70's, so why some industry luminaries have begun to include it in retrospective conversations about the beginnings of the Hollywood New Wave is a complete mystery. Martin Scorcese of all people even got involved, though probably only to give a nod to the dank, lavatorial hues of the grim urban cinematography, which almost certainly influenced Taxi Driver four years later. But Joe seems very much like a furious tirade against the likes of Easy Rider and Bonnie And Clyde, rather than a continuation of that same insurgent cinematic ethos.

It isn't a film of any real artistic significance - despite Joe's incontinent fury at everything in his world, it remains a story about absolutely nothing - but its value as a cultural museum piece is unprecedented. Shot on and around the streets of New York City during the darkest hours of the Vietnam war, and at a time when America (and, significantly, its cinema) was being revolutionized to the horror of the old guard, the film ends up, in its own completely oblivious and accidental way, saying more about that period of history than numerous infinitely superior movies that directly endeavored to capture it.

But as a film? Despite a really surprising and effective shock ending, this is basically a Michael Winner film, but not as well made. How does that tickle your fancy? ** Incidentally, if you are, like me, a fan of spotting arbitrary background lookalikes, then check out Harold Steptoe at 1:22:11 in the hippy art gallery.

Sentiment: negative
I have just watched the season 2 finale of Doctor Who, and apart from a couple of dull episodes this show is fantastic.

Its a sad loss that we say goodbye to a main character once again in the season final but the show moves on.

The BBC does need to increase the budget on the show, there are only so many things that can happen in London and the surrounding areas. Also some of the special effects all though on the main very good, on the odd occasion do need to be a little more polished.

It was a huge gamble for the BBC to bring back a show that lost its way a long time ago and they must be congratulated for doing so.

Roll on to the Christmas 2006 special, the 2005 Christmas special was by far the best thing on television.

Sentiment: positive
THE MATADOR is hit-man movie lite....if you can say that about a hit-man movie. The violence is never really shown but often introduced. At first I was scared I was in for another retread of mid-90s gangster-hit-man-hipster-dark comedy BUT was happily surprised when I realized this is just a sweet and humorous story about friendship. Nothing terribly exciting happens in this film but every bit of it is kept me grinning. The three leads have the best chemistry the big screen has offered in recent years and it looks like they had a great time making this film together. The writing is sharp though at times it felt as if the script had been adapted from a stage play because of the one set dialog scenes. This is a good film that I probably won't remember for too long but at the time it was a complete joy. Good film.

Sentiment: positive
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water...

Another computer generated mutant croc on the prowl for human lunchmeat, let loose by another one of those facilities conducting mad science. Gereco Biotech company is fooling around with growth hormone research, accidentally releasing a baby crocodile which is evolving at an accelerating rate.

B-movie cast add a deal of fun to this run of the mill "genetic mistake monster movie". Costas Mandylor evokes Mick Dundee, Aussie accent, hat, big ass knife, the works, as a croc specialist hired by Gereco executive Joanna Pacula(..wasted in the stereotypical role of corrupt administrative executive who denies any involvement with the gigantic beast her facility let free on innocent people). Charles Napier is the local sheriff whose town is in danger and Jane Longenecker is his hot daughter, who works at the animal shelter. Soap opera star Matthew Borlenghi is Longenecker's love interest, a local artist who welds sculptures(..his brother is a victim of the croc). Of course, this skill will come in mighty handy when our heroes set up a created trap for the croc, hoping to poison it with carbon monoxide.

The croc itself is never the least bit convincing as it rampages through a reserve looking for food, the special effects of a low grade variety. In regards to Roger Corman productions dealing with renegade dino-monsters, I stick with Carnosaur. The monster here is essentially a crocodile standing on it's hind legs, often upright as it pursues potential victims. I felt Mandylor and the filmmakers were spoofing Crocodile Dundee with his croc hunter, and this imitation might amuse where the monster itself fails. Borlenghi and Longenecker actually have pretty good chemistry together on screen. As expected, Pacula gets her commuppance in hilarious fashion(..gulp).

Sentiment: negative
Let's cut a long story short. I loved every minute of it. A lavish fantasy in true Arabian-Nights style. There's an evil magician, a pretty princess, a djinn and everybody lives happily ever after. Modern Hollywoond sure does have one or two things to learn from this classic. Only quibble: the special effects are pretty dated (loved Sabu with the djinn's foot, though!)

Sentiment: positive
Cybrog 2:Glass Shadow stars Elias Koteas as Colton Hicks (Rhymes with kicks!) a karate instructor who helps a Cash (Jolie) escape from Pinwheel, her creators who look to detonate her and destroy a rival company. Along the way Billy Drago and Karen Shepherd show up to displace the duo, while Jack Palance is there to deliver guidance to the duo on the run. One of the things that is quite shocking about the Cyborg franchise, is how the series has managed to have quite prolific and off beat actors in the cast. The original had Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dayle Haddon (Don't know her? Well she was in a bunch of 70's pornos) this one has Jack Palance, Elias Koteas,Billy Drago and Angelina Jolie. The third one has William Katt, Zach Galligan and Malcom McDowell. (Okay so, Cyborg 3's cast isn't that impressive.) I've never seen Cyborg 3, but I did see this on Sci-Fi channel and must admit I wasn't impressed. Actually strike that, Cyborg 2 is an often lovely looking movie, it's shot with excellent style and the visual detail make this easy on the eye. However Cyborg 1 was the same way, indeed the movie was directed with a certain amount of style, slow motion and music that made it all easy on the eye. Unfortunately like the first, this one doesn't have any new ideas or anything resembling a plot or texture. Most of the ideas are taken from Blade Runner and Max Headroom, so for various reasons the movie doesn't have much to offer beyond it's look. Another aspect is the terrible acting. Karen Shepherd and Billy Drago are absolutely terrible and Angelina Jolie isn't much better. Elias Koteas and Jack Palance come off fine but seriously Palance is playing a cyborg warrior and Koteas is a karate instructor. I guess on the positive side you can't accuse Michael Schroeder of not being ambitious with casting. Still the movie is dull and I for one lost interest in the story fifteen minutes in. Also why did they tie it in with Cyborg anyway? It has nothing to do with it's predecessor, which this manages to be worse than.

* out of 4-(Bad)

Sentiment: negative
This is an entertaining surreal road movie. It was written by Joseph Minion, who also wrote After Hours, Martin Scorsese's excellent surreal film. The film follows the adventures of a ten-year-old kid named Gus, who drives a red Ford Mustang across some fictional states with names like Tristana (A tribute to Luis Buñuel's film, perhaps?), Essex & South Lyndon, in search of eight elusive Motorama game cards from various Chimera Company gas stations. The film has a surreal feel to it because a lot of the things are unusual, like the money for instance, which is like blank paper with numbers on.

Most of the characters are nasty to Gus on his trip. They tattoo him, punch him, but this doesn't stop the kid on his relentless quest. Some oddball actors like David Lynch incumbent Jack Nance, Meat Loaf & Flea also make appearances. Jack Nance plays a motel owner, who when he first meets Gus tells him, "If you see any squirrels, give them to me". This is a movie where a man and his wife abandon their young children because the man owes Gus $100; and a mother encourages her son to raise his voice louder while speaking rudely. If you're a fan of Twin Peaks and surreal movies, you'll like this. An odd little gem of a movie.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, sure, this movie is a bit on the hokey side. It's difficult to take characters from comic books and put them into movies with any credibility (Dolph Lundgren as The Punisher, anyone?), but this tries very hard. I've never read the actual comic book, but that doesn't really matter, I suppose. I judge a film mainly on its merits, not on whether it is a faithful retelling of someone else's idea. (Unless its a film based on a true story, that demands at least some attempt at truth and accuracy.) So why will I give this movie a fairly high rating? Because it tries. It tries very hard. In my book, that makes it a fair attempt at an entertaining film.

Many films have been made with vampire subject matter being the main focus. It seems everybody has their take on vampire lore, be it the cross, the silver, the garlic, the aversion to sunlight, whatever. Some of those ideas are included here. The storyline is familiar... a group of vampires conspire to take over the world, with one person (mainly) standing in their way. Blade (Wesley Snipes) lives for the sole purpose of the destruction of the vampiric masses, who have slowly but surely moved into the world, and share it with humankind. For the most part, the human race is blind to the fact that vampires exist all around them. The vampires have even taken familiars, people who aspire to be vampires and do the vampires' dirty work for them to show how worthy they are of eventually being "turned."

Now that I think of it, there are many elements of this movie similar to the storyline of the Roddy Piper film, They Live. A hidden enemy, hidden group of people plotting against them, the fight to save human-kind... all that is present in Blade as well.

The acting isn't the best here. Snipes is, at best, only slightly better than some of his other roles; N'Bushe Wright, a relative newcomer, isn't too bad; Kris Kristofferson is forgettable as Blade's sidekick (he's to Blade what Chip is to The Punisher). Stephen Dorff does the best job of the whole cast here, as the "head" vampire you just love to hate.

I don't know, but I just loved the special effects in this film. From the blood-soaked vampire-style rave, all the way to the inevitable fight at the finale of the film, the special effects aren't half bad. There's certainly enough blood and gore to go around, but after all, this is a vampire movie, right? The various shapes and sorts of weaponry Blade uses are fairly unique, and not generally used in contemporary action films. Snipes has more flair with a decked-out sword than he does with, say, a machine gun. Plus, there's so much more thought that goes into fighting with a blade than just blowing someone away. (Unless, of course, you are Indiana Jones.)

Overall, this isn't the best action film ever made, but it's not half bad, either. As a bonus, the musical score & soundtrack are pretty cool, too. Tell me, in what other movies can you hear super drum'n'bass like Source Direct or Photek?!

My Rating: 8/10

Sentiment: positive
The movie blood and chocolate is NOTHING like the book. The plot has totally changed and whoever chose the cast needed to read the book. First the girl is not an introvert Aden is. Vivian was the one that chased Aden. Her mother was to have survived and be the one after Gabriel. Astrid was the one that did all the murders along with Ralf an ex of Vivian's. Gabriel is not old. He is old looking. And Aden DID NOT get Vivian in the end, Gabriel did. The title came from Vivian comparing kisses from Aden (sweet like chocolate) and Gabriel(delicious like blood). She picked blood because it promised more and he understood her more. That reminds me, Gabriel is not against humans like in the movie. He just avoids intimacy with them because they hurt him in the past. Really the book is sooooooo much better than the movie. But if you want o see running, a dating montage, and a lot of jumping. Then this is the movie to see.

Sentiment: negative
I've read approximately 10 reviews of this film, but haven't taken any of them "to heart". Harrison Ford is being criticized for everything from his haircut to his earring and I really don't see what any of these things have to do with the film. As I recall, he had bad hair plus bad reviews in Blade Runner but it's still a favorite among us videophiles. It is slower than the majority of his previous films but not worthy of the trashings it has received.

I would gladly pay $7.50 just to watch a bald Harrison Ford mow his lawn.

Sentiment: positive
The hysterical Hardware Wars is finally out on DVD. HW has earned its niche among parody classics and is not only a riotous little 20 minute short but a staple in low budget film production classes, which is where a lot of the film's cult status is derived from and resides. With the DVD, not only do we get a chance to revisit the original parody (4Q2, Cinnamon-Bun Head, Ballistic Toast, et al) that Ernie F. did in 1978, but there is a lot of additional material showcasing the Fosselius wit. Antique Sideshow is a dead-on parody that is very funny but makes a statement about the confluence of ignorance and greed at the same time. The Director's Commentary is also hysterical, as is the Creature Feature which parodies taking a film out on the talk-show circuit and actually IS based on taking HW out on the talk show circuit, albeit the public access circuit. I'd love to see Ernie, Michael Wiese and crew take on some other, contemporary overblown and overbudgeted targets to parody -- like just about any film that Hollywood churns out at $100 million a pop these days -- not so much the crafty films like Spider Man or Men In Black (actually parodies themselves!) but any number of overblown, overhyped, overwrought and overpriced features.



Sentiment: positive
Unfortunately, SpaceCamp came out about the same time as the Challenger Explosion. Which really put a crimp on when to bring it out or even if they should, bring it out. I'm glad they did. I first watched SpaceCamp at a drive-in movie. Which really enhanced the viewing a lot.

While I had heard of Lea Thompson and Tom Skerritt. I had never heard of the others in the movie. So, it came as a big shock to me to find all those youngsters acting, and acting real good! Of course, Kate Capshaw was excellent too.

I especially liked the scenes, where those kids were being shown how to act, as a team. The scenes of the kids being prepared for a trip they could only hope for. The actual launch of a spacecraft, is of course, old news to us. However, this one was different.

All in all, this is one of my most treasured films. Escapist maybe, but it was fantastic for a space nut like me. After probably renting it for 30 - 40 times. I finally found it available in a certain store and bought it. Now, if it only comes out on DVD. I will probably have it forever. This movie gets a 9 out of 10 from me.

Sentiment: positive
I have to say that there is nothing wrong with low budget films, so that was not my problem with it. My problem with it is that I felt like I was watching my next door neighbor's home movie. IMO everything about it just seemed like a guy wrote out a quick story, grabbed a camera, and started shooting. I understand how hard this must be to do effectively, but when I pay to rent a film, I expect to feel like I am watching some type of professionally made movie.

John Schneider has a huge resume, is a great actor, and was fine in this film. The other people in it were not. I understand how it must be fun, and cheaper to use friends, and relatives as the cast, but it doesn't make for convincing acting. It seemed like the way it was shot, he was trying to give many of the scenes a more interesting look, but when the writing, plot, and acting are there to begin with, that type of style isn't necessary, and it is a distraction.

Also on a technical level, it had digital artifacts all over the place. In the first scene of all of those fine cars, when they did a slow scan of them, they appeared to jerk back and forth just a little bit. The problem isn't in my viewing equipment, (Benq PE-8700 84" diagonal) but somewhere in the production. I've never seen that kind of artifact in a professionally made film before. Then there was the sound. It sounded like they didn't do any voice-overs, which may be o.k. unless it sounded like the track in this film. It sounded like the built in microphone on the camera.

Sentiment: negative
At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.

Sentiment: negative