DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Some of the acknowledged Altman "masterpieces" seem sadder to me now. Maybe it's me. Like the last reviewer, I even like this "lesser" Altman (shown recently on FMC), although I don't think he was aiming at a wide audience. Organization politics as a "microcosm" for public campaigns. Some of this satirical "docudrama" is now dated, like Dick Cavett watching the Tonight Show, but I found much of the dialog funny and insightful (e.g. "You are for real. That means you're no threat to anyone"). The story isn't "profound," but I liked it. And the performances are funny, especially Cavett (as "himself"), Lauren Bacall as an aging conservative figurehead, Glenda Jackson (who actually became a member of Parliament) as a left wing ideologue (in the opening scene lecturing someone dressed as a carrot on the sanctity of politics), and Carol Burnett as a basket case. All in the inimitable Altman style, although maybe not quite as inimitable as usual. But pretty inimitable.

Sentiment: positive
Hitch is a light-hearted comedy that will entertain you with some fine performances. Will Smith turns in a believable performance as a cloak and dagger Date Doctor who must remain invisible to protect his clients and his profession. Smith was excellent, never schmaltzing it up too much.

The best piece of acting goes to the actor (don't know name) playing this accountant who has fallen for this woman who is out of his league. This actor did an excellent job of character development as he listens to Smith's directions, but in the end, just can't help being who he really is.

And in the end, that's the main message of this film. Be who you are in love, and you'll be OK.

At the same time, Will Smith meets this attractive lady and the Date Doctor gets a taste of his own medicine as he slowly falls for this woman. Don't know her name, but she was pretty good too.

Overall, this was a delightful, light movie that is definitely worth seeing.

Sentiment: positive
I've read some of the comments about this film and can only surmise that some people are easily entertained. This movie is nothing. It's so badly written, directed and acted that it barely makes an impression. The characters speak in cliche-ridden dialogue and the situations are completely implausible. While that might make this campy and fun, it doesn't because everything is so lifeless the film becomes dull. It's as if Lee Rose decided to write a drama about a woman struggling with her sexuality but then she either wasn't allowed by studio execs to give the story some true-to-life gusto or didn't have the cojones. This movie could go in the enyclopedia as the standard-issue bad Lifetime TV movie.

Sentiment: negative
Yes. Watch this movie if you like brave films. This is maybe the best Mexican picture since Midaq Alley just because the excellent cast, the outrageous direction and a sublime soundtrack. Many people did not like 'Cronica', they think it's very aggressive but they didn't understand that it was just a representation with hyper realism of the Mexican society but so similar to all the third world families. I hope that Benjamin Cann and Bruno Bichir (who in this movie gives another example of his greatness as an actor) soon get together again with a new film. Just Remember how Los Olvidados (Luis Buñuel) was misunderstood when released, but now we consider one of the best movies of all times. Please, prepare yourself and watch this film.

Sentiment: positive
I remember watching this movie several times as a very young kid, and there were parts of it (many in fact) that I did not understand. I think I have seen it once as an adult, and I then understood those parts. The only problem with viewing it as an adult was that it was not entertaining to me at all. So what kind of movie is this? Is it a "kids movie"? Not hardly. It contains language and subject matter not suitable for kids. Is it a hyperbole of what every parent feels like they are going through with their own children? Maybe, but then why wouldn't it focus more on John Ritter's character instead of Junior? When a film has a 7-year-old as its main character, in order to do well with it's audience, it should be a movie for the seven and under crowd, otherwise people older than that will have no way to relate (even 8-year-olds wouldn't want to see a movie about a kid who is whole year younger than them). I'm pretty sure this film did not do well in the box office, and the reason has to be because it was unable to find a niche in the market.

Sentiment: negative
Very funny, well-crafted, well-acted, meticulous attention to detail. A real window into a specific time and place in history. Could almost believe this was a true story in a parallel universe. Interesting how Passport to Pimlico anticipates the Berlin airlift. A definite 10.

Sentiment: positive
This is one great movie! I have played all the Nancy Drew games and have read the books, and I never expected the movie to be so exciting and funny! If you never heard of Nancy Drew, read the first book (Secret of the Old Clock) so you can kinda' get used to Nancy, then you can watch the movie, because in the movie, they don't really introduce the characters' names fast. ;) My whole family enjoyed it and the plot was extremely interesting. This is an ultimate come-back from the previous Nancy Drew movies, which the Nancy Drew actor didn't seem to match. This movie is much like Alex Rider: Stormbreaker. It's so cool! Nancy Drew lovers, you must watch this!

Sentiment: positive
I don't know what the previous reviewer was watching but I guess that's what reviews are, personal taste. Missed in this movie was the depth, a very deep film, many layers of emotion, affecting. Undercurrents of withheld love because of submission to societal beliefs, taboos of the times and classes, race relations not being in a very good state of equality, guilt, yearning, hate, confusion, very dark emotionally I thought, under the skin, you have to submit to the aire of it, a flowing movie, not slow as stated before, release yourself to the flow of the film, the emotions will show themselves, characters reveal their flaws, their nasty insides, excellent and actually very cruel!

Sentiment: positive
I used to like some of the Hollywood action blockbusters of the 80s. They had icons such as Arnie and Sly but I think the action movie in the '90s has plummeted to new depths. The worst of these, I believe, was Armageddon.

The plot is shamelessly contrived and pulls off the worst cliches as it seeks to excite viewers. The melodrama is so cringingly saccharine and awful that you actually cannot wait for Bruce Willis to disappear from the screen. Liv Tyler, who had acted admirably in several fine independent features directed by such masters as Bernardo Bertolucci and Robert Altman, regrettably decided to jump onto the commercial bandwagon. This movie symbolises the new Hollywood aesthetic of grand special effects and precious little good dialogue or authentic melodrama. That is the norm these days and I begin to wonder if there is a role in Hollywood for screenwriters. It seems as though they just employ hacks and committees to write the facile scripts. The rest they leave to technology. There is not a single piece of grand, heartfelt human emotion in Armageddon. It just feels empty and bland. I can think of only one good aspect of this movie and that involves Liv Tyler's dad who doesn't even make an appearance in the film. Steven Tyler's band Aerosmith provide a theme song for the movie - a ballad that really soars and at least tugs at the heartstrings a little when the end credits come up.

I weep for Western civilization if people like this predictable, cumbersome movie. It stands for shallowness, lethargy, and a decline in the human intellect. I would even prefer to watch the eighth Friday the 13th.

Sentiment: negative
The more I watch Nicholas Cage, the more I appreciate him as an actor. Watching this movie now (in 2005), I can see that it doesn't really fit into the genre of movies that was coming out in the early 90s. I don't really think it can be considered a film noir, but it is pretty dark at times, due mostly to the lighting and odd personalities of the characters.

Typical performances from each of the three main actors, who all did a good job with their roles. I thought, however, that Hopper and Boyle's characters were left undeveloped, as it was sometimes hard to understand what they were doing and why they were doing it. Hopper is a love him or hate him kind of guy. The plot is really good, and although I found some parts to be very unrealistic, there were parts where I had to hand it to the director (i.e. when he first sees the sheriff). All in all, this movie is definitely worth watching. ***1/2

Sentiment: positive
Okay, so the introduction, with its hokey offer of a free coffin to anyone who dies of fright during the film, is so lame it's funny. And so the first "skull scene" is so drawn out and un-suspenseful it's funny. The actual plot of the movie is somewhat decent, there's at least a little bit of genuine food for thought in the behavior of the characters, and the plot twist is decent as horror flicks go. The acting is average, not truly bad. 

Altogether, this movie doesn't quite fall flat in the way a 1/10 movie would. It's not terrible enough to get the lowest rating or even second lowest. If I just read the screenplay, I'd say there was potential for this to be a decent movie. It's just that the horrid direction and production that ruin the movie. So it's a bad movie, but there are much worse ones out there.

Sentiment: negative
I understand that this movie is made for kids and as a parent I have sat through many movies that don't particularly hold my interest, but I can appreciate from a constructive point of view in how it is being received by my children. Parents are supposed to be encouraged after all to take part in their children's activities and to monitor the quality of the entertainment that they view so there should be something that appeals to an adult audience on some level even in children's movies. Disney has always understood this which is why it is so hard to fathom how it could allow such a complete piece of drek to bear their name.

Technically, the sound editing is horrible and all dialog sounds over-dubbed and unnatural. Personally I hate that, but it was doubly awful considering the dialog itself seemed as though it was written by a 12 year old for a school project. The "acting" reminded me of a school play and none of the child actors had any range of emotion in their voices. Thankfully it was a very short movie.

Now, before I come off like a video-geek measuring a kids movie with an adult yard stick, the one thing that can save even the worst children's movie is a positive message. Far be it from me to determine how a message has to be delivered so long as the right one is. Let us take a walk through this film to see what messages are given: 

If you are lost, don't worry, you will inevitably find your way home.

Approach wild animals without any fear.

You can win any competition just because you "know" you can.

and my favorite, the final message left in the film: 

It's okay to disobey authority figures and do what you think is right.

Sentiment: negative
While not as bad as his game-to-movie adaptations, this hunk of crud doesn't fare much better.

Boll seems to have a pathological inability to accept that he doesn't make good movies. One of these days he'll run out of money and stop inflicting the world with his bombs.

The acting was sub-par, the dialog sounded like they were reading TelePrompTers and Boll's special little 'touches' were seen throughout the whole thing.

Like all Uwe Boll movies, this one just shouldn't exist.

Plain and simple.

Just like Uwe Boll himself shouldn't exist. >_>

Sentiment: negative
Honestly, this may be the worst movie I've ever seen. And I've seen Spider Baby, and Not of This Earth. Heck I've even seen 200 Motels. Having just discovered the Freaks and Geeks series and being surprised at the acting ability of Linda Cardellini I checked out the reviews here and decided this was worth a try. That is the LAST time I will ever rely on a review at IMDb. I didn't realize that MORONS were writing IMDb reviews while they were waiting for their calls to be answered on AM radio. 

This movie is so far beyond bad that mere words cannot express the wretchedness of its vomitous state. Seriously. 

Watch this movie if you think Will Farrel is really really really funny, if you think Adam Sandler is a comedic genius. Watch this movie but PLEASE DON'T BREED!

Sentiment: negative
I thought this was very "different" compared to most modern interpretations of Shakespeare and enjoyed it thoroughly. It would not be useful for those studying it at school etc. as it does not show the traditional Shakespeare character interpretations (i.e- Miranda is portrayed quite punky compared to your traditional Shakespeare lady) but for understanding of the play and for the basis of the story it is a very strong piece and fantastic to watch. It does not include also the correct format, as in the layout of acts and scenes as I am currently playing Miranda in a production and most of her lines had been cut and some scenes split and mixed around but it is very useful and I would definitely recommend it as a must-see even if just to say you've seen it! Shakespeare fans would love this!

Sentiment: positive
I am easily pleased. I like bad films. I like films featuring attractive young women in small amounts of clothing.

This film gives all the above a bad name. Yes, you know going in that what you're getting is not high art, or anything like. But, even for the type of movie it is, Beach Babes From Beyond isn't very good.

Some people have given it 10. I can only assume that these are people who have had the organs which enable rational thought to take place surgically removed.

It isn't very good. It simply isn't very good.

3 out of 10 solely on the grounds of a) novelty value for the famous relatives and Burt Ward and b) some of the girls are cute.

Oh, by the way, did I tell you that it isn't very good?

Sentiment: negative
In a future society, the military component does not have to recruit; rather, their candidates are chosen at birth, culled from nurseries and designated to spend their entire lives in the service of the government. They are given over to the war machine, body and soul, for no reason other than to protect and serve; they have no personal identity other than a name and rank, and no autonomy whatsoever. This is the fate of those whose destiny is predetermined for them in `Soldier,' directed by Paul Anderson and starring Kurt Russell. The scenario is hard and bleak as the movie begins by depicting the training of the soldiers during advancing periods of time, from preadolescence to adulthood. Russell is Sergeant Todd, the best of the best, and we glimpse his career as he discharges his duties in an exemplary manner in campaign after campaign; he is what he was born to be, a soldier. But even the best cannot go on forever, and the day arrives when Todd and his peers are no longer the elite. A new generation of soldiers has been created, products of advanced genetics and technology, and Todd's generation is suddenly obsolete. What follows is the story of a man who must fight for his life, while struggling to discover his own sense of humanity and individuality, traits new to a soldier who has known only two things his entire life: Fear and discipline. Russell gives a commanding performance as Todd, the soldier who above all else must obey orders without question while suppressing all emotion and individual thoughts. He has few lines in this movie, but Russell speaks volumes with his eyes. This role demonstrates that he is, in fact, one of the under-appreciated actors of our times; that he can disappear so entirely into the character of Todd is a credit to his ability, and with this part he has created someone quite different from any he's done before. And he's given Todd a depth and credibility that someone of lesser talent could easily have rendered as nothing more than a pretentious and superficial stereotype. Notable performances are also turned in here by Connie Nielsen (Sandra) and Jason Isaacs (Colonel Mekum). Rounding out the supporting cast are Jason Scott Lee, memorable as Caine 607, one of the new generation of soldiers; Sean Pertwee (Mace); Gary Busey (Captain Church); Michael Chiklis (Jimmy Pig); and Mark Bringleson (Rubrick). Anderson has delivered an action film with a message, a cautionary tale that transcends the genre of science-fiction. `Soldier' reminds us of the importance of keeping the humanity of our lives intact. It's an entertaining way of making us consider the alternatives, like a bleak future and a world in which good movies just wouldn't make a whole lot of difference. Much like `1984,' and `Mad Max,' this movie, which is ultimately uplifting, is going to make you take pause and think about the kind of Universe in which we all must live together and share. I rate this one 7/10.

Sentiment: positive
It's wonderful to see that Shane Meadows is already exerting international influence - LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDANT shares many themes with A ROOM FOR ROMEO BRASS: the vague class identity above working but well below middle, the unhinged father, the abandoned urban milieu, the sense of adult failure, the barely concealed fascism underpinning modern urban life. 

But if Meadows is an expert formalist, Mariage trades in images, and his coolly composed, exquisitely Surreal, monochrome frames, serve to distance the grimy and rather bleak subject matter, which, Meadows-like, veers from high farce to tragedy within seconds. 

There are longueurs and cliches, but Poelvoorde is compellingly mad, an ordinary man with ordinary ambitions, whose attempts to realise them are hatstand dangerous; while individual set-pieces - the popcorn/pidgeon explosions; the best marriage sequence since THE DEAD AND THE DEADLY - manage to snatch epiphany from despair.

Sentiment: positive
I am a huge Gone With the Wind fan, and I read "Scarlett" before it was a miniseries and loved it. This is a sequel of sorts. Like you didn't expect it with that "Frankly dear, I don't give a damn" ending. Timothy Dalton was great as Rhett, though no one will ever replace Clark Gable. Joann Whaley-Kilmer, on the other hand, could give Vivien Leigh a run for her money (though I feel almost guilty even saying that.) Her attitude and presence in the film fits the character to a tee, making you love and hate her at the same time, which is how most feel about Ms. Leigh's portrayal as well. The film does move slowly, mostly because it follows the book so closely and was not released as a feature film. Excellent choice on the producer's part. I think this movie deserves some recognition for the great storyline, the revival of characters that had been gone for almost 50 years, and for being something that even Margaret Mitchell herself could have been proud of.

Sentiment: positive
I have copied my video of this on to DVD so that I can enjoy it whenever I like and it makes a very successful (and rare) wedding present as well! This is just an absolutely wonderful adaptation of a much loved novel. Everything about it is just perfect and it has aged amazingly well. There is always a chance with something this old that it might appear a bit creaky next to more modern dramas but 'Precious Bane' more than holds its own.

The quality of the acting is amazing with Janet McTeer making a superlative Prudence and a young Clive Owen stomping around as the taciturn Gideon Sarn. 

I challenge anyone to watch the final sequence without at least sniffling a little at the sheer romance of it all. It is the perfect film to watch when it is cold outside and you are snuggled up on the sofa.

I really can't recommend this highly enough.

Sentiment: positive
I'm really not too sure why people are being so complimentary about this odd movie. Having said that - I did actually sit through the entire 2 hours and can't say it wasn't entirely un-entertaining.

I think the key problem is that Frank Marshall is not a true director and this is clear in the film - he is an experienced producer, so will have seen a movie made many a time, and will understand what goes into the process. But I think this is quite different to being able to truly direct a movie - the direction was competent, but somehow flat and direction-less. Marshall has more experience as a unit or second director, and this came through, I feel, in the finished product - it appeared to be a group of sets that failed to really have any continuity in its feel or its character.

Fun, watchable, but good? No.

Sentiment: negative
Even if you subscribe to the knee-jerk anti-free-trade politics of this movie, it is still just the same tired note, played again and again and again. Clink clink clink. Even if you can accept a preacher with peroxide hair who advocates a return to first principles, the Reverend Billy is pretty hard to look at as a serious figure. The clownish reverend is the sort who wakes every morning with no aspiration more ethereal than to see his own face on TV before he climbs back into bed that night. He has a pretty wife, I have to admit, but it would take tons more than that to save this dreary mess of a movie. The interminable bus rides are the worst part--with progress shown--can you guess?--by a colored line moving across a map. Aww, you guessed. Oh well, it has the virtue of being short. Is that the only favorable thing I can say? Hmmmm. Yep, afraid so.

Sentiment: negative
To put it simply, I am not fond of westerns. And having never sat through one from beginning to end, I decided to watch "My Darling Clementine" and see it all the way through, no matter how painful it was for me. At first it was excruciating as expected. I found the acting to be laughable, the scenery (your standard dessert, horses and cowboys) boring and the music and its timing teetering on the edge of painful. However, after mentally pep talking myself to struggle on, after the first 20 minutes it began to be quite a bit easier for me to endure. Focusing in on the cinematography, and how John Ford managed to make even the dullest situations (dull according to me that is) look quite stunning at times, made it a lot more interesting. 

In conclusion, I can't go so far as to say that I enjoyed the movie by the end of it. However it was made well enough for me to sit all the way through to the very end, and that in itself impresses me.

Sentiment: negative
No, just kidding. It was God-awful.

I was watching my local Sci-fi station last night, which plays movies, every night, within a monthly theme. This month it's "Space Turkeys, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bombs". Movies so bad, they should never have been made. This was a good selection.

Everything about this movie is thoroughly horrible with two exceptions, the gore make-up (which showed potential) and the editing (which slightly out did the rest of the movie, in terms of being horrible). The acting is horrible all around, the dialog is horrible, the script, the direction. It's not a good movie.

It consists of two forms of special effects, gore and stock footage of space. I'll focus on the gore. Watching this movie, I thought to myself, "What WAS the motivation behind the making of this movie?" People like making stuff, sure, but I was hesitant to think anything good could have come of it for anyone involved. I came to the conclusion that this movie was made as a means to increase the Make-up Effects guy's Demo Reel. He (Rick Baker) actually went on to a pretty nice career, he's worked on STAR WARS (1977), KING KONG (1976), MEN IN BLACK (1996), and even THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING WOMAN (1981), plus a number of other notable flicks. Other than that, I can't say I've ever actually SEEN a real, live melting man - incredible, or otherwise - but I'd have to say this seemed to be a fair representation of one.

Now, when I think of bad editing, I usually think of maybe a scene where someone's talking on the phone and then, in the middle of the scene, the phone jumps down to his shoulder, or something to that effect. This movie really serves to highlighted the fact that bad editing can take many forms. Specifically, over-long and utterly useless scenes. Just about every scene dragged on longer than it should have, from a little bit of dead air to that crazy-long screaming scene with Cleaver Girl. And that severed head in the river, the head gets thrown into a river (in slow motion), the movie carries on for a couple minutes, and then we cut back to the floating head and watch it fall down a waterfall. While I'm sure they were all very proud of their severed head, WHAT THE HELL??

Lastly, I'll mention the running fat lady/slow motion scene right near the beginning. The jerky slow motion tells me that they didn't shoot the scene in slow motion originally but later decided that it "wasn't working like that" and then slowed it down. Oy vey. In any event, if you should ever see another movie in which a hysterical fat woman runs down a hall and then directly through a closed, glass door - all in slow motion, mind you - remember THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN, for *this* is where it all started.

Movies like this are best viewed at home with a bunch of friends. This one's a little slow most of the time but that's just all the more time to come up with your own one-liners. It's not the worst of the worst but it's pretty freaking bad.

Sentiment: negative
Early talkie feature based on a popular stage play. A murder has been committed and a bunch of people hire a medium to conduct a séance to see who the murderer is. While the lights are out there's ANOTHER murder...so it's someone in that room.

What follows is an obvious, dull and creaky murder mystery. Most of the cast overacts to a ridiculous degree. They act like they're on stage (where you have to overdo things) and it looks silly on screen. Most embarrassing is Bela Lugosi (two years before "Dracula") who REALLY overdoes it as a police inspector. Static direction by Tod Browning (who was always overrated) doesn't help.

For Browning and Lugosi completists only. I give it a 3.

Sentiment: negative
Believe me, I like horror movies. I like science fiction movies. I like independent films. And, I like low-budget, B movies. 

Sometimes, I even like bad acting, plodding scripts, wooden lines, improbably situations, and the like. However, I did not like Christmas on Mars. 

It just doesn't work on so many levels. For all the reasons listed previously, and many more. That includes the nonsensical, blatant use of images of female genitalia. And the many allusions to male genitalia, in a very Freudian way.

I am convinced this is purely from ineptitude. As opposed to some attempt at doing something really different. I mean any movie that takes years to film, just cannot keep up the level of congruity and focus demanded by modern audiences.

I had hoped that the whole movie was just a dream or hallucination by the main character. However, sadly, it was meant to have happened, as we saw things unfold on screen. 

About the only kindness that I can express, is that the image at the end was stupendous. If this had been used at the beginning, instead of the end, it could have allowed the film to take off where 2001 ended... 

To bad they didn't try that instead. I just don't understand what was so important about this film that it even had to be made. Was it the plot? Surely, it couldn't be. Was it the characters? I doubt it; I mean, I could live without knowing about Ed 15. Was it the dialog? Emphatically, no. The music? Perhaps, but more-likely the unvarnished ego of the principals needing to be stroked. 

Much better efforts have died on the cutting room floor.

Sentiment: negative
This movie has such inexorable B class cheapness to all its scenes, effects etc as to make you think they spent 80% of their budget on Connery. It's like watching some Wing Commander stuff after Star Wars (quite apart from content).

Story can be described in one word: FLAT. And oh my God I can't remember a villain so uninteresting since long long ago. We're given neither a reason he's so wicked (an inborn defect, we're lead to think:) nor any real convincedness or flair to his wickedness.

If you're out for Connery rather go rent `Hunting Forrester'.

Sentiment: negative
"Inspirational" tales about "triumph of the human spirit" are usually big turn-offs for me. The most surprising thing about MEN OF HONOR is how much I enjoyed it in spite of myself. The movie is as predictable and cliched as it gets, but it works. Much credit goes to the exhilarating performances by both leads. It's a perfect role for Cuba Gooding, Jr., who's wonderfully restrained here. We have come to expect a lot from De Niro, and he doesn't disappoint. He creates a darkly funny portrait. Director George Tillman, Jr. set out to make an old-style flick and comes up with a winner.

Sentiment: positive
Wonderful movie. Adult content. Lots of erotic scenes plus excellent music and dance scenes. My wife and I absolutely loved this movie and wish they'd make more like it.

Sentiment: positive
I've never understood the appeal of Garbo. She always comes across in her films as stuck up, not all that alluring, and that annoying voice that could have drowned out the tuba section. She was also a very limited actress, like Gloria Swanson far better off left in the silent era. In this her last film, her performance is very average and even unassured. She tries hard but it all comes to nothing because the script is even worse than her acting.

A would be screwball romcom that is never once believable and never gets off the ground (even though Melvyn Douglas manages to get airborne in the skiing scenes, which are really the only amusing thing here).

There was potential but the script fails in almost every department, wasting every actor in it. Douglas and Garbo had good enough chemistry together but this one isn't even a spot on Ninotchka, which I also found to be extremely overrated.

Sentiment: negative
not many people outside poland have had an opportunity to become familiar with andrzej sapkowski's brilliant writings. he's very popular in poland for his fantasy short stories ( i believe none of them has ever been translated intrto english. alas!). to make a long story short, wiedzmin - the main character of sapkowski's books - is a traveling monster slayer, a man of extraordinary strenght and skill: he's pretty much your favourite tolkien-style cool guy. unfortunately, no one would figure this out after watching the film. 'wiedzmin' the movie is nothing but a collection of random scenes, featuring wiedzmin and other characters from sapkowski's writings, but not eben remotely resembling the plot and dramatic pace of the original. event the fact that some of the shots in the film show attractive naked women does not add any quality to it. the movie gets worse and worse with every minute, and does not even meet the requirements of 'so bad it's actually good' category. if you really are into fantasdy and want to learn something about wiedzmin, read the books instead.

Sentiment: negative
The question is, can a movie this entertaining really be considered a "bad" movie? My husband and I picked this up at a used video store for 99 cents simply because of the title and the fact that the box had the words "Vestron Pictures" on it (Vestron has been highly regarded as a mark of quality ever since I first acquired the legendary films "Suburbia" and "Class of 1984"). We were not expecting a movie as full of win as this one was. Your basic plot as is follows: Grange, this goombaesque thug from planet Earth, robs "the bank of the Moon" and is sentenced to a penal colony on a remote planet (I don't even remember the planet's name) to mine for bauxite and other minerals. The "governor" of said colony and the owner of the mine are exploiting the prisoners for labor. Walker, a bounty hunter (apparently one of only three on the whole planet) reminds the prisoners that there is no escape, because there's only one shuttle out of the whole planet and they'd have him to deal with. Then there's the nameless "Colonel", a retired bounty hunter who suffers from a haunting reoccurring nightmare. Much of the movie centers around "futuristic" car chases (dunebuggies with plywood slapped to the sides) with explosions galore. The planet itself looks suspiciously like Hemet, CA or one of those other dusty Inland Empire outposts. But what makes the movie truly shine is a surprisingly awesome soundtrack featuring several LA punk bands of the mid-80s. I seriously doubt that this soundtrack was ever pressed to vinyl, but it's definitely worth buying the movie just for the soundtrack. I can't even remember the names of the bands (they're listed in the credits) other than Exploding White Mice, because that was the only one I'd heard of before I saw this movie, but I'm definitely looking into them.

Basically, the movie is definitely not a waste of your time and would be best enjoyed with a 12 pack of beer and a few of your closest friends.

Sentiment: positive
I wasn't even born when this series was released in the USA. It took about another decade before British TV networks laid hold of it.

In fact, I was fortunate enough to see the very first episode, in which The Lone Ranger was one of a posse who ran into an ambush and got slaughtered. TLR was the only survivor. Although badly wounded, he was saved by a passing Indian called Tonto. I believe he took to wearing a mask in order to hide his true identity for fear of reprisal. But instead he made himself all the more recognisable. Dunno if he wore it in his sleep.

This was Saturday teatime staple. The fanfare bugles of William Tell's overture presaged a dash to the telly, food still in hand. Though it very quickly became repetitive, predictable hokum. Nobody ever unmasked him. Nobody ever landed a punch, nobody ever out-shot him. He was a little too good, and just a little too camp in his dress for most kids. Poor Tonto, on the other hand, became his Aunt Sally. He was always getting slugged and tied-up and kidnapped and stuff.

And what did he keep calling The Lone Ranger? 'King Savvy' was the general consensus where I lived. It seemed to imply 'the big know-all' in Indian-speak. But is sounded like something else, as if Mr Silverheels had a speech defect. 'Kemosabe'; what the hell's that? 

A later, and less well-merchandised duo called 'The Range Rider' and 'Dick West' eventually won my vote. This featured a naked-faced Jock Mahoney who got beat-up pretty thoroughly in each episode and was altogether less camp, less super, and more believable.

Still; even today I can't hear William Tell's overture without expecting the gallop of hooves and a hearty Hi-Oh Silver.

Devine daftness.

Sentiment: positive
Two thirds of nearly 2,000 IMDb users who have voted on this film have rated it at 8, 9 or 10 and one user reports wearing out six videotapes (Was this a record, or merely a faulty VCR?). Although the film is primarily intended as a period piece it clearly has a quite unusual fascination. But for some reason I imagined it as largely whimsy and until recently never felt the urge to watch it. My mind was changed by Elizbeth Von Arnim's original book. My wife loves reading but her sight no longer allows her to read much so she borrowed it in talking book form. Such books are usually irritating to a companion who is busy with other things, but I gradually came to appreciate that this one was seductively soothing, although in no way syrupy, and was also very well written. I realised my wife would enjoy watching the film, and so decided to buy her the videotape. I am now very glad that I did, and would certainly recommend its purchase to anyone else who appreciates a quiet reflective work with no fireworks but with well constructed character development and a very successful pre-Mussolini Italian atmosphere. The story is set in the immediate post WW1 period and starts with two married London ladies who decide to pool their savings and enjoy a holiday together, away from their families, in a rented villa in Italy. Force of circumstances lead to this couple being joined by two others with very different characters and backgrounds. Its theme is essentially no more than the interactions that take place as their holiday progresses, not only between these four very disparate mature ladies, but also with the occasional male visitor. If you want action, thrills, dramatic sex scenes, natural or man-made disasters, or Harlequin style romances this would not be the film for you. But IMDb users have collectively and very emphatically demonstrated that none of these are necessary for a film to prove highly rewarding to watch, and if you care to give it a try you may, as I did, come to rank it among your much loved films.

It is fairly rare for me to watch a film of a book with which I am already familiar. In many cases I find this takes some of the pleasure away from watching the film, but here there is such a strong visual appeal in the setting that I actually found my pleasure augmented by the anticipation of seeing the next segment of the book, effectively unrolled before my eyes. (Perhaps Italy itself has some part in this, the last time I had this experience was when I was watching tales from Boccaccio's Decameron on TV.) Generally films of books tend to increase the dramatic level of the original work to ensure that the filmed version has an even wider appeal, but here if anything it is reduced in order to keep the viewers attention on the gradual character development rather than on any background events. This works very well, although changes from the book are few and basically the film remains true to the original story. Great credit is due to the Director, Mike Newell, and all members of the cast, particularly those well known British Actresses who play the four principal ladies.

Sentiment: positive
I've read every book to date in the left behind series, and the movie hardly does any of them justice. Sure, I've seen worse movies, but this was incredibly disappointing. This movie would have made a good MST3K episode. The script was a horrible adaptation of the book, and it felt like the actors were reading their lines, instead of actually saying them. The characters were stiff and unlikeable. The effects were cheesy, and looked terribly fake. The ending was awful. First of all, it didn't even go all the way through the first book. Second, it made no sense. If you hadn't read the book, you'd have no idea what was going on. It had to have been the most cheesy, film student-like ending I've ever seen in a movie. I'm upset that I actually paid money for this movie. If by some miracle, it does get wide release, they ought to totally overhaul it and let Hollywood take over. Those two wannabe film producers, and the wannabe director should leave movie making to the professionals.

Sentiment: negative
This was Keaton's first feature and is in actuality three shorts, set in different periods (Stone Age, Roman Age, Modern Age) on the eternal triangle of romance. The stories parallel each other as in Griffith's INTOLERANCE, which this was intended to satirize. The strengths of the jokes and gags almost all rely on anachronisms, bringing modern day business into ancient settings.

**** WARNING - SPOILERS FOLLOW TO ELABORATE BEST POINTS ******

Here are the classic moments:

Using a turtle as a wee-gee board (Stone Age); A wrist watch containing a sun dial (Roman Age); A chariot with a spare wheel (Roman Age); Using a helmet as a tire lock (Roman Age); Early golf with clubs and rocks(Stone Age); Dictating a will being carved into a rock (Stone Age); The changing weather forecaster (Roman Age); The chariot race in snow -Buster using skis and huskies with a spare dog in the chariot's boot(Roman Age).

The above are all throw-away gags that keep us chuckling. There are however unforgettable moments as well:

Buster taking out shaving equipment to match girl putting on make-up; The fantastic double take when an inebriated Buster gazes at his plate to discover a crab staring up at him (within one second he has leaped to stand on his chair from a sitting position and leaped again into the arms of the waiter - one of the funniest moments I've ever seen). And that lion - the manicure -just brilliant.

There's also an off-color bit of racism when four African-American litter bearers abandon their mistress for a Roman crap game.

Kino's print is a bit fuzzy and contains numerous sequences of both nitrate deterioration and film damage- most probably at ends of reels. The Metro feature is scored with piano and flute and borrows heavily from Grieg.

Lots of fun and full of laughs.

Sentiment: positive
ALIEN LOVE ( As this movie is known in Britain ) is a very strange movie . I don`t mean that it`s an esoteric art house movie in the style of Peter Greenaway or Derek Jarman , I mean it`s a TVM with swearing , sex , some really good T&A , a bad script and a very retro feel . You can just imagine someone like John Hughes directing this ten years earlier , though of course he would have cut out the T&A 

Going back to the bad script , one of the problems is that few of the characters have any type of motivation especially Amanda . Why does she pick up Connie at the bar ? Just so she could meet an alien ? Do you see what I mean about retro ? ET , SHORT CIRCUIT and a whole lot of other movies from the mid 1980s had this type of plot with most of them being more defined and convincing than the one seen here . The storyline continues to follow an ill defined , unconvincing and illogical path 

That said I did find ALIEN LOVE watchable and not only down to the T&A on display . As a a sci-fi sex comedy it`s much better than FLESH GORDON and EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY

Sentiment: negative
Incarcerated train robber near Yuma breaks free his chain-gang and heads for the retired sheriff responsible for killing his wife (as well as a hidden stash of gold which remains hidden thanks to the screenwriter). Attempt to bring the western genre up-to-date with 1970s-style violence and brutality isn't even in the same league as some of the new-fangled westerns which came out of the late-'60s. It is impossibly simple and square, with the female characters merely around as punching-bags and possible rape victims. As the former sheriff back in command, Charlton Heston gives one of his laziest, least-inspired performances ever (he has one good moment, attempting to read a letter and fumbling for his glasses). James Coburn, as the half-mad half-breed, is pretty much on auto-pilot as well, but Coburn has a way of turning even the hoariest dialogue and situations into something prickly and unnerving. It's his show all the way. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
This Oscar-winning short film (40 minutes), based on a short story by William Faulkner, takes us back to small-town Tennessee in December 1941. Two brothers, one about 18 and one about 8 are looking for birds eggs (obviously a huge collectors item for boys in the South around this time). Well, the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor and the older brother, Pete, decides to enlist. He gives his prize egg to his little brother, Willie and heads off wishing to show more emotion and tenderness to his little acolyte. Well, Willie isn't having any of it, if Pete can be a soldier so can he. He heads to Memphis, showing his stubbornness and determination as he gets the better of several adults along the way. After finding the enlistment center in Memphis, he demands to see his brother, pulling a knife on a lieutenant and wounding him in the process. We are shown the devotion and love of a little brother (Jonathan Furr). He delivers a impeccable performance as a stubborn strong-willed boy in the gentler times of yesteryear. The movie tries and mostly succeeds in showing how brothers can show devotion and the importance of family ties in one's youth. As the two brothers reunite shortly, the movie delivers a cathartic cry as the brotherly love envelops us all.

This movie is like a cold bottle of water. Maybe Dasani or Aquafina, good, clear water with a flavorful mineral packet, but not pure natural spring water like Evian. Still, it quenches your thirst and you don't doubt its purity and quenching effects. It is more run of the mill and less expensive than some, but gets the job done, leaving one refreshed and detoxified afterwards. 7/10

Sentiment: positive
As someone has already mentioned on this board, it's very difficult to make a fake documentary. It requires tremendous skill, pacing, patience, directorial 'distance,' a plausible premise, a narrative 'flow,' and REALLY believable acting (aka GREAT acting). 

Such is not the case with 'Love Machine'. It starts to show its faux hand about the 20-minute mark (with 60 minutes left to watch), and the viewer starts to realize that he or she is being taken in. It's downhill from there.

Director Gordon Eriksen simply peaked too soon. But to be fair to Eriksen, his problems started early: as he explains in the extras, he began wanting to do a REAL doc, couldn't get funding, and settled for a cheaper way of making his film.

The premise -- people who have secret lives by posting themselves on a porn website -- was perhaps more interesting in 1997-98, when the film was made. Eriksen does a lot of tricky stuff -- a pushy 'host,' hand-held cameras, zooms, grainy blacks and whites -- all, I guess, to elicit a sense of authenticity, but it just doesn't work. The film is confusing and forced, but what ultimately brings it down is the believability of the actors and the pretty awful dialogue.

Sentiment: negative
This is, by all categories, the best movie I have ever seen. Forget Hollywood - their movies always sucked - this is art! Moon Child's story starts with Kei - a Japanese vampire, who loathes what he has become and lives in denial. His wish for final death leads him to Mallepa, where refugees from several Asian countries live. Here, he meets Sho, an orphan living on the street.

From here, the movie is an intense experience which bases on the visual and emotional part of the movie. It has everything; you laugh, you cry, you get angry, excited, sad, happy... Never has a movie touched me the way this movie do. And the actors are amazing - never have I heard anyone speak so many languages without it sounding strange. A big praise to the editor for creating this masterpiece...

A last comment on this brilliant movie, is that it stars Gackt (ex-vocalist of Malice Mizer) and Hyde (vocalist of L'Arc~en~ciel) in excellent roles as Sho and Kei. I am amazed at how Gackt can change his way of speaking and acting depending on what age he is acting out.

This is a must see. If you never see any films, see Moon Child, the Crow (Brandon Lee) and the newly released masterpiece Final Fantasy VII - Advent Children. All in their original languages, of course!

Sentiment: positive
witty. funny. intelligent. awesome. i was flipping channels late one night years ago. came across this and a wildfire started. i was staying up late every night and taping it for everyone i know. a few. like 3 people out of the almost 100 people i made watch this didn't think it was as awesome as i did. the others were laughing out loud so hard they were crying and thanking me at the same time. please do yourself a favor. run don't walk. watch this and enjoy. intelligence and humor. it's a win-win situation. i wish i could have afternoon tea with him and meet the truly rare comedian that we as a society need more of....sanechaos.

Sentiment: positive