DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Wow, what a cheesy movie this is! It starts off looking like it's gonna be a backwoods slasher, with the camera following dogs running through the woods. It then gets a bit boring and follows the story of some girls moving into some house haunted by Indian spirits. We then get plenty of shots of one partially clad girl and another naked girl in the bath. It suddenly gets really cheesy when the "Zombie Indians" arise from the earth and start terrorising the girls. We even get a samurai Indian. 

This movie starts off pretty boring although I did find the story of the four Indians who buried themselves alive quite interesting. Once the Indian zombies (or whatever you want to call them for they aren't technically zombies) start terrorising the girls is when all the fun begins. This is not a special flick and can't be taken seriously, it's just something fun to watch when you're bored or when you're drinking with friends. I can't help thinking though that it would have worked better as a short story because the first half is tediously boring.

Sentiment: negative
Is this the same Kim Ki Duk who directed the poignant, life-spanning testimonial of "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring"? The same Kim Ki Duk who directed the exquisite, nearly silent, heartbreaking longing of "3 Iron"? The same Kim Ki Duk who dazzled us with the staggering tragedy of "The Coast Guard" and made us squirm about the ugliness of nonchalant teenage prostitution before returning to his almost patented nature motif to allow us all (characters and viewers alike) to experience redemption in "Samaritan Girl"? I just cannot seem to find him in this film.

Oh, sure, Kim's nature motif is still present. The film takes place entirely on a lake surrounded by mountains and on fishing floats resting placidly on the surface of calm waters. Yes, it's Kim Ki Duk, all right. Kim even describes the film as "beautiful" in an interview included in the DVD's special features. But I'm not sure anymore what that means after viewing this putrescent presentation.

What is beautiful about angry, potty-mouthed prostitutes, lustful, violent and potty-mouthed fishermen, a covetous mute merchant, explicit animal torture, sequences of self-mutilation and a pace that swings nauseatingly between bestial carnality and mindless brutality? These are the only elements of humanity that present themselves in this utterly confounding and ultimately pointless film. If it is based on a fable or intended as a parable or is meant to be symbolic of something greater, this reviewer is unfamiliar with the source material. It has been favorably compared to "Audition" by Japanese director Takashi Miike (much to Kim's satisfaction), but aside from some astonishingly good performances, especially given what they had to work with, by lead actors Seo Jung and Kim Yoo Suk, I find little reason to recommend this film. I have not seen "Audition," but I doubt it would alter in any way my view of "The Isle." Its violence is pornographic and senselessly sadistic. Its sex is not pornographic, but passionless and masochistic. Characters behave on irritating impulse because there is no plot. Its point is either non-existent or, I will admit, lost amidst Korean cultural quirks that I fail to understand.

The only beauty is in the cinematography, which is classic Kim: fog-shrouded boats lapping slowly across a serene lake, mountainous terrain dominating the background, and an imaginative and playful use of color. At times it seems as if viewers are locked in a big Kim Ki Duk romper room. Some touches, like the mysterious and seductive mute merchant played by Jung and the pleasantly odd use of motorbikes, are intriguing. But as a film, this effort is downright confusing and, in the end, offensive to the senses, not necessarily to sensibilities. One hopes that Kim will leave this kind of film-making in the trash heap of his past, for we know he is capable of so much more.

Sentiment: negative
Three horror stories based on members of a transgressive Hindu cult that return home but changed in some way. In the first story our former cult member is now in an insane asylum and is visited by a reported who wants to find out about what went on at the cult. Somewhat slow going as story is told in flashbacks while the two sit on chairs and face each other. Reporter is particularly interested in what lead to the death of the participants. What seemed rather boring suddenly turns very exciting with a surprising twist in the story. Things get quite bloody.

Second story has a violent young criminal visiting a psychiatrist for mandatory therapy. The patient seems to have some type of agenda but the psychiatrist is up to the task. Again, things slow down a bit and get weird. Then there's a strange twist in the story that is very well written and surprising.

Final story deals with spiritual healer who claims to be able to remove the persons illness from them with his hands. One of the patients is a former cult member, so the successful healing gets more complicated. Again, we are surprised by a twist. Has a pretty gory scene in there.

There some nice female full frontal nudity as well as male full frontal nudity for some reason. I found the stories to be very well written and the director succeeds entirely in setting up each story with its surprising twist and the gory aftermath.

Note: review of the German DVD.

Sentiment: positive
One reasons why they call the 80's, "The Awesome 80's" is quality television. Shows like the Wonder Years, War of the Worlds (the series), V, Amazing Stories, and many more have always left an impression to each "fortunate" one of us that in time will always find a way to reawaken itself. To top that, here comes Monsters! A series quite unique of its own, and a theme fully dedicate to - monsters. May it be the good, the bad, and the morbid.

If you're a fan of classic shows or if you have the fascination of horror films then this one is absolutely for you. Provided you can find this rare gem. 

Even the newer generations will be in awe with some of the episode with its grittiness, it's indiscriminating use of gore effects or its story telling power and simplicity. I guarantee, because I'm 23 :).

Be sure NOT to miss this!

Although, it's a show seemingly forgotten by the modern world, it will always be with those who can always remember...

Sentiment: positive
to movie,this movie felt like one of those after school specials,only lower budget and lower everything else.i guess this was supposed to an inspirational movie of some sort,but it didn't work for me.yet some how it comes across as preachy.it has very pale shades of Flash Dance,but so what?there just isn't any excitement in this movie.the dialogue is contrived and clichéd to death.of course,the whole movie feels like a bad 80's cliché.the acting was less than stellar,though that has a lot to do with what the actors were given(or in this case-not)to work with.on top of that is the poor song choices,with really bad lyrics.i felt embarrassed for all the actors involved.they are all talented,but you can't tell from this movie.this is just my opinion of course,but i have to give Flying AKA Dream to Believe a 1/10

Sentiment: negative
After a string of successful 'a man and his monkey films', which included the seminal "Every Which Way But Loose", "Every Which Way You Can" and "Peter's Friends", the genre fell on hard times. In an effort to rejuvenate this once celebrated area, director Frank Marshall brought Michael Crichton's acclaimed novel to the big screen.

Think 'Gorillas in the Mist' meets 'Tron' minus the box-office clout of Bruce Boxleitner. This is one mans doomed love affair for his talking monkey. Not helped by bad accents (Tim Curry struggles with a Romanian), a baboon of a screenplay, hungry hippos, skydiving primates and Bruce Campbell. Ape-Sh*t.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is an amazing comedy.. the script is too funny.. if u watch it more than once you will enjoy it more. Though the comedy at times is silly but it really makes u laugh!! Salman Khan and Aamir Khan have given justice to their roles. After 1994 i have not come across any hindi movie which was as funny as this.

Sentiment: positive
Very well done acting and directing. This is a cross between "The Last Don" and " Godfather 2".One large plus for this production is that it is claimed to be a true story of Joseph Bonanno. With a better music score to create mood, it could have been a rival for both Godfather movies.

Sentiment: positive
All I can do is echo the sentiment already expressed by some of the other commenters. This is CITY OF GOD meets HAPPY DAYS. The bipolarity of the ruthless thug (one minute a ruthless killer, the next minute a Luv's diaper commercial) is completely unconvincing. You can approach it in one of two ways: (1) A gritty, realistic movie turned sappy; or (2) a sappy, ABC-afterschool-special with profanity, violence and animal cruelty. Either way it just don't fly, do it? Why then has it received so much praise? As others have implied, it gets the "conscience vote" from the west. Show us pictures of poverty to contrast against our fluffy, double-wide theatre seats and 44-oz cokes, and we'll applaud in a heartbeat. But--oh--don't forget to candy coat it, because the bitter pill of reality (tantalizing as it is) is hard for us to swallow.

I'm terribly disappointed that this film would receive so many awards and accolades, especially when there are far more deserving works of film out there. All I can say is: beware of any film that receives awards (Hollywood Oscars = sweeping, syrupy tripe. Cannes Film Festival = beard-stroking, artless propaganda). To find the real gems, you'll have to work hard at it.

Sentiment: negative
It's exactly what I expected from it. Relaxing, humorous and entertaining. The acting couple was awesome, as well as the scene selection. I personally recommend this. It's kind of the movie that can be seen by whole family at the same time without anyone feeling uncomfortable or getting bored. This cute movie will make you smile, and laugh too. And the action scenes are tasty. Classics of modern american comedy. And very well done.

Sentiment: positive
If you like shoot em up westerns this is a keeper. I thought that the movie was fun to watch and to see folks that I have not seen in a while. I am no expert but I liked the acting. The town and props etc seemed to fit the period and kind of town that you would find out on the frontier. This is not an A western, not enough people and budget. The costumes and firearms were correct for the time! I expect to see the young actors in the film again in the future. Rachel, Chance, Rebekah and Kirby were great. The SASS (Single Action Shooting Society)members that contributed to this effort were pretty darn good. Hope to see more.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is the proverbial 80s flick that shows the viewer that as long as he or she tries at something, they can be better than the pros. The main character, Doug, showed off his skills in flying a Cessna aircraft, which somehow equated to being fully capable of flying a jet aircraft and being able to kill people. We all would like to have a few million dollars to play with... maybe make a good investment, donate, buy a few things, but the directors of this movie decided to make Iron Eagle... not once... not twice... not even three times; yes, four times. The thing to look most forward to are the multitude 'hollywood endings' in this movie. Just when you think the movie is going to end after a cheesy end sequence, there's another cheesy end sequence. Then another. Definitely a movie one must watch to believe... and maybe own just to remind oneself of how awesome the 80s must have been.

Sentiment: negative
In this 'sequel' Bruce is still called Billy Lo (get it? Bruce= Billy, Lo= Lee. No?) But apart from that, that's all it has in common with the other movie. Billy doesn't seem to be an actor anymore. He seems to be in another country. He's more like a spy. He's the only cast member to return and sadly, they kill him off to make way for a new character, his brother, Bobby. Sadly, when Bruce dies, the movie pretty much dies with him. This was extremely poorly made. It seemed like they were writing the script as they were filming. The footage works for a while (it's not too obvious at first) but soon Bruce is always shown in the dark all the time (he kicks out a light at one stage for no other apparent reason to hide the fact that it's not Bruce playing the part). Sadly when he dies the movie changes. I can't help but wonder if they were filming as they were writing and may well have planned to keep Bruce alive, but later decided to kill him off because it would not have been plausible as Bobby does not appear until Billy is dead. It's hard to change the lead character halfway in the movie and Bruce is a hard act to follow so it's hard to now accept Bobby as the star. Bruce is never seen again in this movie. I think they should have made this sequel without Bruce he has a lame role in this movie. People hoping to see a new Bruce Lee movie will be disappointed to see that although he's given the top billing, he only has a featuring role. Even the worst movies have at least one memorable bit. If there was one bit about this movie people seem to talk about, it's the scene where Billy fights in a plant nursery. Ironically it doesn't even use Bruce Lee footage. Mind you, they did it more convincingly in No Retreat No Surrender. Not one of the other actors here ever made anything else memorable. Bruce's girlfriend (Colleen Camp) is never mentioned. My advice is to turn it off as soon as Bruce is finished writing his letter to his brother. Nothing else in the movie is worth watching. I found it really sad to see Bruce die. I don't see how a small budgeted movie like this could get enough money to use footage from Enter The Dragon. This was a cheap way of trying to cash in on Bruce's name. Oddly this and the original are credited in Bruce's filmography. Thankfully so far, no one has tried anything like this again. 1981 was the year of Bruce's last movie appearance. It was a sad way to end it, but thankfully this is proof that Bruce's movie career should be left alone.

Sentiment: negative
Deaf secretary Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) is bullied by her mean spirited male colleagues.

When they suggest she needs an assistant it seems like the final insult, but, when the first applicant is ex-con Paul (Vincent Cassel) she seizes the chance to change her life.

Carla covers his mistakes and he, anxious to go straight, reluctantly helps her to take revenge on her colleagues.

When Paul asks Carla to return the favor, she finds herself drawn into the criminal underworld, ruled by ruthless lone shark Marchand (Olivier Gourmet).

Recognizing her ability to lip-read as a weapon no one will have bargained for, the two set out to see justice done.

French filmmaker Jacques Audiard's third feature "Read My Lips" is a genre-defying piece, switching from dark social comedy to visceral full-throttle thriller.

Sentiment: positive
I've only watched the first series on DVD, but would summarise The Sopranos as a Shakespearean plot with a Tarantino-like script. The series is as good as Goodfellas and Casino, and almost as good as The Godfather (hence not a "10"), and far better than any of Guy Ritchie's efforts. Although there's plenty of action, some of it pretty bloody, the story is character driven. Even some of the minor characters contribute to great story lines; e.g. the priest's relationship (or lack of) with Carmilla and the restaurateur's wife, and Christopher and his dimwit friend (who didn't last very long (a Darwin Award nominee?))

Apart from the plot, the script and the acting, the other reasons I liked it;

1. It made me want to visit New Jersey and eat pasta with a tomatoey sauce. 2. The music. 3. It shows that literally anyone can suffer from mental health problems.

Sentiment: positive
John Waters owes me 2 hours of my life back. I saw a sneak-preview screening of this way back in 1990, and I'm still in pain. Not before or since have I seen such a terrible piece of filmic waste spewed upon the screen. There is nothing positive I can say about this film. Acting--awful; plot--ridiculous; music--atrocious. Following the movie, my friends and I demanded our money back from the manager of the theater. He explained that, since it was a free screening, he couldn't give us anything in return, no matter how much agony we were suffering through. How Johnny Depp's career survived this trainwreck of a movie is anyone's guess.

Sentiment: negative
I can't believe I rarely ever see this title mentioned by all you eighties horror freaks and I definitely won't be joining all my fellow reviewers here in saying that 'Bloody Birthday' is awful viewing. On the contrary, I enjoyed it very much and I was pleasantly surprised by the ingeniousness and surprise twists it offers. Don't just refer to this film as being 'another 80's slasher' because the victims here are rather unlikely and so are the killers. We're introduced to three cherubic-looking youngsters who were all born during a solar eclipse. At the moment they were delivered, planet Saturn was blocked by both the sun and the moon and, due to this, the kids are emotionless and seemly without conscience. This really starts to show around their tenth birthday as they go on a merciless killing spree.

Granted, this stuff is incredibility far-fetched and even slightly offensive but, seriously, who cares? Unlike many other horror films from this period, it at least attempts to bring something original and imaginative. For once, the kids' acting is good and the entire film has a creepy atmosphere and grizzly music. The murders sequences are grim and tense, and it's always eerie to see them getting committed by angel-faced kids. I don't know who hired the 3 kids but they did a good job. Especially the girl and the kid with glasses are highly memorable. The bleak images of the heartless trio remind you of classic highlights, such as 'Village of the Damned', 'The Bad Seed' and 'Children of the Damned'. This film is nowhere near as memorable as these milestones but great fun and not one horror lover will regret watching this. 

Bloody Birthday was written and directed by Ed Hunt. Not particularly the greatest genius in cinema, but a pleasantly deranged fella who also brought us immensely entertaining cheesefests like 'The Brain' and 'Starship Invasions'. If all this isn't enough to convince you yet, Bloody Birthday has a lot of nudity. And not just any nudity, but a topless dance-act by MTV-VJ Julie Brown. Oh, and keep your eyes open for a completely redundant cameo by Joe Penny, later the star of TV-series 'Jake and the Fatman'. Check it out!!

Sentiment: positive
I chose this movie by the cover which was a bad move. It wasn't funny at all and the main characters were obnoxious. The girl was beautiful but the story and the acting were terrible. It had absolutely nothing to do with surfing. Terrible movie with a surf "theme" that had nothing to do with surfing and no real surfers. Catherine Zeta Jones was beautiful and the movie will probably see a resurgence just becuase she is in the limelight now, being married with Gordon Gekko and all, but if you haven't seen it don't waste your time. A bad movie with GREAT surfing, REAL surfers and AMAZING, BEAUTIFUL cinematography was IN GOD'S HANDS.

Sentiment: negative
This movie in away was super-clever. It's theme rhymes with every single horror movie ever made. Valentine makes ZERO attempt to be original. What is valentine anyway? It's a bunch of people giving each other the same lame messages that were given to the same people a year earlier. There is nothing original in Valentine. 

I only saw it once, and in that one viewing here are some of the films it ripped off. 1.Prom Night 2.Carrie 3.Scream 4.Any other horror movie in which somebody is killing somebody.

I know there is more, but my mind was slowly turning into a puddle of silk so it couldn't grab them as fast as they came.

Valentine had no chance of being a good movie. How come every horror movie has to have a "suprise" killer, people you don't care about because their emotions take a turn every other scene. One minute a nice girl turns into an evil B--ch, then she's an insecure woman, and so on and son on.

Normally any horror movie (in my book) can be saved by gore, once again Valentine doesn't have this. It was as if they tried to make it PG-13 but failed, so they left the edit. 

Do not see this overly-inspired, rip-off unless you hate yourself, and you want to die.

*1/2 (3) -J.Leonard Rollins-

Sentiment: negative
In 1942 a film TALES OF MANHATTAN told a set of stories that were basically unrelated, but tied together with a suit of men's evening wear. Each story began when the "tails" were passed from one owner (Charles Boyer, for instance) to another (Ceasar Romero). WINCHESTER '73, a superior film, and a great western, has a similar plot twist. Initially it is about how Jimmy Stewart is seeking Stephen (Horace) MacMahon for some deadly grudge. But in the course of the film the two men get into a shooting contest, the prize (given by Marshall Wyatt Earp - Will Geer) being one of the new Winchester rifles. Stewart barely beats out MacMahon, but the gun is stolen from Stewart, and the chase is on. 

The gun passes from hand to hand, including John McIntyre (as an arrogant trader who fatally does not know when to stop being arrogant), to Rock Hudson (in a surprising role - and a brief one at that), to Charles Drake, to Dan Duryea (as the delightfully deadly and psychotic Waco Johnny Dean), to MacMahon. Eventually it does return to Stewart.

The film is expertly directed by Anthony Mann. Every character has a wide variety of experiences. Duryea gets the rifle literally over Drake's dead body (Duryea forces the issue). But he loses it to MacMahon, who is faster on the draw - not that Duryea is stupid enough to fight for the rifle. As he and Shelley Winter look at MacMahon in the distance, Winter (who watched Duryea kill her former boy friend Drake) drops her distaste for the gunman momentarily to ask why he put up with MacMahon's bullying for the gun. Philosophically, Duryea explains he can wait. Some opportunity will come up later on (i.e., when he can safely kill MacMahon and get back the rifle). 

The characters are remarkably human. Winters first appears as the future bride of Drake, but she sees a really big negative side to him - an unforgivable side. Drake is aware of this lapse, and it helps lead to his destruction. Other characters have realistic touches, such as J.C. Flippen as an army sergeant who fights an Indian attack with Steward and Steward's friend Millard Mitchell. Oh yes, and with Flippen's fellow soldier - Tony Curtis. Flippen makes one believe this soldier has been on a hundred battlefields before, since 1861 probably. Steward had showed emotions in other films. In IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE he showed a degree of anger at times, and also a near nervous breakdown when he thinks everything is wrong with his life. But here he showed a demonic anger - at the expense of a surprised Duryea (who normally would show such anger himself).

The parts of this film fit very neatly together, under Mann's competent hands. This is one western that never wears out, as the audience watches the travels of a Winchester rifle.

Sentiment: positive
Say what you will about schmaltz. One beauty of this film is that it is not pro-American. It is a morality about some Americans being called to high purpose and how they rose to the occasion. It is inspiring because it is about people of noble purpose.

To me, the most interesting part of the film is the education of Fanny and David Farrelly (Bette Davis' mother and brother). As Fanny says, "We've been shaken out of the magnolias."

In today's political climate where, led by a president who shamelessly lied to us and used 9/11 to bring out the absolute worst characteristics of human beings, we sunk to the level of the 9/11 murderers to seek blood-thirsty vengeance. It can't all be blamed on Mr. Bush - after all, we allowed him to lead us in that direction and even re-elected him after his lies had been exposed. Now, with complete justification, we Americans are reviled throughout the world.

Today, we watch this film with a new awareness: That the rise to power of Nazis in Germany was not due to a flaw in the German character, but, a flaw in human beings that allows us to rationalize anything that will justify our committing immoral and heinous acts. I'm not comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler. But, I am pointing out how a leader can whip us up into a frenzy of terror, hatred, and hyper-nationalism to do despicable things.

Sadly, the blackmailer, who will do whatever needs to be done for his own agrandizement, no matter how immoral, is most like the leaders of our country, those who support them, and those who have buried their heads so deep in the sand, that they can't even be bothered to vote.

A film like Watch on the Rhine reminds us of what we once aspired to be - a force for the betterment of humanity - and that we have it in us to once again aspire to lofty goals.

Geoff

Sentiment: positive
There is a version of "Nevsky" that is shown with a live symphony orchestra, chorus, soloist and the movie. If it's EVER performed within a day's travel of you see "Nevsky" done that way. The Oklahoma City Philharmonic did it with the OKC Canterbury Choir (one of the finest anywhere) a couple of years ago. I think I cried through the whole thing, it was one of the most emotionally powerful movie experiences of my life. I'm listening to "Nevsky" on the radio right now and it still tears me up. There are movies that I love, and classical music pieces I love, but there is no combination I can think of that comes close to the impact of "Nevsky" performed in real time.

Sentiment: positive
I almost called HBO and demanded my money back for the month just because they've been airing this movie. I can just see the movie execs sitting around going, "Okay, we need to come up with something that's just like Home Alone, only we'll add a bunch of cash for the kid, hire cut-rate actors, and oh yeah, we'll make it a lot less funny!"

Okay, maybe not the last part, but that's basically what you've got here. Not even worth seeing if someone else rents it. And as a movie for kids? Forget it. I wouldn't let my kids see this, not necessarily because of bad-taste jokes, but because I wouldn't want them to say, "What were you thinking showing us that lame piece of garbage, Dad?!?!"

Sentiment: negative
Visconti's first feature, Ossessione is an adaptation of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice. Now, I'm not familiar with that book or the other film versions, but I am a big fan of Cain's Double Indemnity (much more so than I am a fan of Billy Wilder's film version of it, in fact). The two novellas seem like they must be very similar. Both involve an illicit love affair where a ravenous wife complains to a morally weak man that her husband is worthless and mean to her. Giovanna, the woman in this Italian version, played very well by Clara Calamai, is not evil incarnate like the wife in Double Indemnity, but she seems very spoiled. Her husband (a great performance by Juan de Landa) is a bit cruel to her, but she strikes me like she is at least as uncompromising with him. He's older than her and unattractive, so she's rather fickle. When Gino shows up, a young, muscular man, it takes her about five minutes to get him into bed. She sweats she wants to be with him forever, but she's stuck with her husband. They break up at first, but when they meet again, they (apparently, although this is intentionally vague) plan to murder the husband. They are successful, and they move back to the woman's home town to run the bar that her husband owned. Gino is very unenthusiastic about this idea. He wants Giovanna, but the one thing that he certainly doesn't want is to sit around in one place for the rest of his life. Their relationship quickly crumbles. Ossessione is a very complex film with complex characters. It's always fascinating, but it does go on a bit too long. At two hours and twenty-two minutes, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how it took that long! This is partly due to the neorealist stylistics that Visconti was inventing within this film. It was, after all, the first film that won that label. We see a lot of the action prolonged as it would be in real life, without any hurrying to the next plot point. I've seen many of Visconti's films, and the only one I like better than this one is Rocco and His Brothers (1960). His direction is as great as it ever was, with the camera moving brilliantly and the editing perfect. I also feel the need to point out the film's best performance, by Dhia Christiani as a young (exotic) dancer and part-time prostitute named Anita whom Gino meets after he begins to try to break away from Giovanna. She's only in the film for maybe five or six minutes, and she has only a few lines. It's shocking how much Visconti and Christiani are able to do with this character in such a short time. She's absolutely heartbreaking. 9/10.

Sentiment: positive
This film is, far and wide and beyond any shadow of a doubt, the single worst and most contemptible film in the history of the universe.

It really *is* that bad.

Personally I have always enjoyed the guilty pleasure of a terrible film, and rented this one thinking it would be one of those. To my immense disappointment, it was not.

The script is delivered in a way that sounds as if they're reading the lines directly off placards, the story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and the actual film looks like it was shot on a home video camera. I couldn't even finish watching it. It is even worse than "Witch Academy", and that's quite a feat in itself.

I cannot even begin to fathom how a director could shoot this film, and then still have the sense to believe it was decent enough to release.

Painful, awful, horrendous.

Sentiment: negative
I've seen this movie about 6 or 7 times, and it truly gets funnier every time. Perhaps what I enjoy most is the tired character paradigms that the movie offers us: the somber all-American male protagonist, his blonde girlfriend, the theater nerd with glasses, a brunette girl, the antagonistic jock, and brunette girl #2. However, we're then presented with two magician martial arts experts with mullets driving a convertible. If anyone can explain that, please contact me. Among other highlights are Bobby Johnston's portrayal of the jock character, Dell, and his trademark line, "That's why I keep her around." In watching Johnston's performance, it comes as no surprise that his career quickly descended into the realm of soft-core porn. (SPOILER) Also, after multiple viewings, I STILL have absolutely no idea what that big demon at the end says at any point; it's just electronically muffled noises. Oh well, that's probably for the better. And lastly, why are all the demons so slippery? Is wet skin scarier? It certainly didn't help in this film.

Sentiment: negative
Allow me to start this review by saying this: I love vampire movies. They can suck (har har pun intended), and I'll still love them because vampires are just cool in movies. Van Helsing, considered by many to be a steaming pile of crap, was enjoyable to me because of the fact that there were vampires. You may ask: "What does that have to do with this movie?" The answer is that I intend to inform you of how horrible this movie truly is, that even a sucker (harharhar) for vampire movies like me can despise a movie like this so much.

The movie stars Van Helsing, a college professor guy who isn't at all convincing. He's a terrible actor, like everyone else in this movie, and he wrote it, to add salt to the wound. I honestly to not mean to offend him, and I'm sure everyone had fun making this movie, but watching it was actually painful. I'm not sure why I watched the whole thing; perhaps it was a morbid fascination, like watching an impending train crash: it's horrible, but you can't manage to force yourself to look away. Its main fault is that it's just so ****ing boring, and its plot is so damn ridiculous, even for a science fiction horror movie.

But, I digress. By the way, Van Helsing has sex with his mom. Of course, he doesn't know it's her at the time; he just thinks it's one of his students (which is still illegal and all, but not as disgusting and creepy).

If I were Van Helsing, I would at least pull an Oedipus myself when I found out I had done something so gross. It would've made for one entertaining thing if he just made some comment on it, but no. The point isn't even brought up at all, by any of the characters. It's as if the writer didn't even think of it. I would've at least had another character laugh at him and say "Ha ha, you had sex with your mom," which would be mildly humorous (although blatantly immature). I'm probably running out of room, so a few more words to dissuade you from ever seeing this film: there's a vampire ninja fight with an old man. It would be funny, but the filmmakers expect us to take it seriously. It's not even worth watching the movie to see how bad it is. Stay far, far away from it if you value your time at all.

I will say one thing positive about the movie: the guy who plays Van Helsing is pretty slick with that knife of his. There's like, a minute long segment where he swings around his knife and actually does some pretty nifty tricks. It would be boring in any other movie, but here, sadly, it was the highlight.

Sentiment: negative
Pretty decent for his early work and no Kokaku Kidotai without it, and gets an 2 points extra for the easter eggs. For Shirow definitely a rung in the ladder. I am biased as a Shirow fan but this was a big step from Dirty Pair which was what I knew of him. Violent fun with a porno soundtrack! You cannot help but notice that. I know people appreciate him for Ghost in the Shell..but all of the deep spiritual overtones were dealt with in Appleseed. ESWAT killing terrorists, the struggle for humans to stay viable as bioroids phase them out, and Deunan staying thin despite her intake of junk food. Definitely like the characters even the traitor..and I do not know why.

Sentiment: positive
Let me start off by saying that I loved the original Grudge. It was bar none one of the scariest, most hair-rising experiences I've ever had in a filled movie theatre. I'm not kidding. Being a self-declared japanophile also made the flick look better in my eyes (if the setting had been changed to some American suburb I probably would've ended up hating the film).

That said... this movie is a complete mess! I won't say it sucks, because A) the movie does have some good points, B) "it sucks" is the lamest put-down in the history of lame put-downs. So what does the movie have going for it? Well, for starters it has a pretty cool look: through filters and the use of bleak, washed-out colours, Takashi Shimizu almost recreates the downbeat, angst-ridden atmosphere of the original. A few scenes are genuinely shocking and unpredictable. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is just plain bad. Period.

The story is all over the place, needlessly told Tarantino style, i.e. the scenes are out of chronological order. This technique is pointless in the case of this movie and it merely makes things more confusing. Frankly, a straightforward plot would've worked better. The original was also lacking plot-wise, but it did make sense and the film more than made up for its thin plot with lots of scares and a genuinely tense atmosphere. Grudge 2 has none of these elements and is just a waste of time.

Let's not forget the TV-show acting skills which make the cast of the original Grudge look like Emily Watson and Katherine Hepburn. Simply put, the movie doesn't work. It's too slow, too dull, and just not scary enough to make up for the confusing plot (which adds nothing new to the story, by the way, so not even Grudge fans will be pleased).

Oh, and what is it with the old man playing Japanese peek-a-boo on the bus?? Is this supposed to be comic relief? Artistic statement? Or what?

Sentiment: negative
A great slasher movie -- too bad it was the producers and not part of the script. Basic plot summary - man with redhead fetish goes invites such women to his flat only to go into some kind of freakish coma and proceeds in offing them to various degrees of success. Only the cutting crew behind the scenes must have thought the movie was as ad as I did and chopped the heck out of the movie. Nothing flows, you get lost on which redhead he is with at the time (didn't he off that one earlier??), and most of the time it looks like the camera man passed out and resumed filming when he awoke. Not that I can blame him I passed out 2-3 times and had to rewind and resume to try to regain what little plot that does exist. Warning when you see the ending DO NOT try to connect it with anything that happens before -- you will just get an aneurysm. Not worth the time, effort, or God forbid money. Only reason to get a 2 instead of a 1 - the slim chance that the hacking occurred between film release and the horrible version that I watched.

Sentiment: negative
Phoned work sick - watched this in bed and it was so awful I would have went back to work if I could have gotten out of bed. The dog ran off with the remote so I was stuck.

I'm positive Hammer was grooming the eldest daughter to become his beeeatch.

Horrendous to watch - made me vomit more than what I was doing anyway. So there you have it - this would be the film that they play in the waiting room of Hell before you go in. Or maybe your stuck in the film for all eternity with the Hart kids. Just remember to take a gun with you....

Sentiment: negative
In a better civilization, this and many other of the David Suchet movies would be released in theaters. The plots are fabulous (no, I'd no clue who had done it, but the clues were all there if I'd been more imaginative - the best kind of mystery), the production values astounding, the acting (from Edward Fox, Sarah Miles, Lysette Anthony, Megan Dodds, and of course David Suchet as Hercule Poirot) simply perfect, the dialogue wonderful, the music and sens of suspense and tension just wonderful stuff.

One of the pleasures of these Hercule Poirot movies for a man is how many beautiful women star in them! Here were have two - the sexy sinuous Megan Doods and the stunning Lysette Anthony.

You really can't go wrong renting these - they're just wonderful - like the most wonderful dinner in the most wonderful restaurant with the most perfect company you can imagine - your mind constantly working because it's all there and you struggle but by keeping your mind constantly thinking can keep up with everything - and the settings gorgeous.

I can't think of movies that stimulate thought more than these Hercule Poirot/David Suchet movies. It's impossible to over-praise them - and I had never seen one before a few months ago nor read an Agatha Christie.

Sentiment: positive
Disney's done it again. The company that made "Mr. Magoo" and "George of the Jungle" has made another movie that barely resembles the cartoon on which it is based, and keeps none of the spirit of the original.

"Inspector Gadget" was one of my favorite cartoons when I was a young one, and for a movie of it to exist may have been a dream come true back then. Now that that movie does exist, I was severely disappointed, even outraged.

First we have the characters.

Gadget himself has the gadgets that made him such a fun character in the original cartoon (with well-done special effects accompanying them), and he even has some of the naivete of the original Gadget, but he is now more competent and is expected to solve the crime himself while Penny and Brain just watch.

Penny has little to do; while she played a major role in the cartoon, discovering the crime and halting it, and occasionally getting captured by the MAD agents, now she is simply introduced and then forgotten, although she does at least sneak into Claw's base.

Claw is the movie's version of Dr. Claw, who was a rather sinister, raspy-voiced man who wore metallic gloves and sat in his chair, his face hidden from view, as he stroked his cat and oversaw various crimes. Now he is simply a man with a claw for a hand, with no mystery behind the character.

Brain and Mad Cat exist in the movie, but are rather insignificant to it.

Even small parts of the cartoon aren't spared in this butchering. The famous expression "Wowsers!" was mysteriously changed to "Wowser", and Gadget's Gadgetmobile now looks different and talks.

There is even product endorsements everywhere. Why is "Yahoo!" advertised on a sign? Why does the Gadgetmobile have buttons for M&M's or Skittles?

Fans of the cartoon will hate it, others might will likely find the movie below par, and when all is said and done, this movie is another attempt to make some quick bucks off another old show.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is hilarious, not in good way. The fights are awfully bad done, while sometimes they will try to shock you by breaking some bones, and even this happens only two or three times, definitely not enough to call it a shockmovie. A gunfight means a hero can walk into an open field with 10 people shooting at him with uzi's, pick up a gun, start shooting back and not get hurt. 

The story empty, guy waking up, lost his memory, starts fighting cos that's what he's good at. Five years later memories come back, takes revenge blablabla. 

Not worth your buck, not really worth your time unless you're drunk and bored.

Sentiment: negative
Don't get me wrong. I've got a considerable soft spot for the works of Charles Band, both as producer and director. But you've got to raise an eyebrow when the man who was willing to put his name to "Dollman Vs The Demonic Toys" sticks a pseudonym on anything. As a bit of bad-movie fun, "Head Of The Family" is rather lacking, although it is better acted than you might expect. Jacqueline Lovell is a definite talent who deserves better than these kinds of movies. J.W. Perra is also quite funny as the titular monster, though for such a superintelligent being he does get hoodwinked quite easily. Y'know, I'm nitpicking because the rest of the movie is so sharp and witty of course....

And having a lead character called Lance Bogan? Nice one guys. We didn't know you Americans knew that piece of slang!

Sentiment: negative
I am completely shocked that this show had been cancelled.Ity only lasted one year.I just recently started watching it and I love it.Its a show that could of gone as far as Friends went.It had the humour and was extremely enjoyable.

It is about 2 brothers and 2 sisters living under one roof without their parents.Kurt(Joey Lawrence) plays the part of the oldest sibling and takes on the more fatherly role.

This should of lasted much more than year as it was fantastic. Amazing show with all the best actors.

10/10

Sentiment: positive
I cannot see why filmmakers remade this movie. 

The 1972 movie with McQueen and McGraw is almost a classic. Steve McQueen was an outstanding actor and Baldwin is only an inadequate actor. He has no passion in his play.Also the action in the original "Getaway" was fantastic. But the remake has no action! It is almost boring despite the fact that the film-making in 1972 was more difficult than in 1994. 

I don't understand the way that Baldwin imprisoned from Mexico. I think this is a mistake in the story.

So i think that there was no need to remake it, or if they decided to remake a classic, they must choose an excellent actor for the first role, like Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt...

Sentiment: negative
As hard as it is for me to believe, with all of the awful reality shows out there over the past few years, this one has to take over the top spot for worst one yet. I am still wondering if this was actually just a spoof done by the SCTV gang. If Andy Kaufmann were still alive I'd be sure he was behind this. Can a rock band stoop any lower than has INXS to do such a shameful thing as this? The premise is simple and moronic. Audition a bunch of karaoke rejects to become the new lead singer of INXS, to take the place of Michael Hutchence (who committed suicide in 1997). Eight years and no hits later, the band commit the ultimate act of patheticness by subjecting themselves to auditioning a bunch of talentless wannabes to be the new lead singer of a band that is 20 years past its prime. So they trot all of these awful singers (I thought American Idol had its share of doozies) who do atrocious renditions of just about every classic (and predictable) rock song imaginable. And then they cut to the INXS band members who are seriously discussing the merits of each of these candidates. You could see better (and more original) rock performers at just about any night club in any city in the world.

It has all the usual uncreative elements of every other reality show. Lame reality participants, lame interviews, lame host/emcee, lame "judging" of performances, and the lame booting of one participant at the end of each show. Can these shows get any more predictable? It's clearly a publicity stunt on the part of the band; a last gasp of hope at rekindling their lost stardom before they are finally buried into oblivion. Michael Hutchence, if he had any shred of dignity when alive, has to be rolling over in his grave. Not that INXS were ever a great band, but I had no idea they were this pathetic. If INXS are at all representative of what rock and roll has become, this show would be the final proof that rock and roll is once and for all, dead.

Sentiment: negative
A lot of the negative reviews here concentrate on the historical accuracy of this film. OK, it had about as much to do with the actual NFL as your average war movie has to do with an actual war, or a Western has to do with the true "old west". So, I think we should give them an artistic license pass on that one.

The problem here is, the director (Clooney) apparently thinks that making a screwball comedy means a) do stupid things, b) mug for the camera, and c) take stupid scenes full of mugging and stretch them out way too long. Screwball comedies need a fast pace, not necessarily frenetic, but moving briskly along at all times. Here, things drag, and drag, and drag. After you watch this movie, it will make you appreciate how brilliant Mack Sennett was when he pretty much pioneered the genre with his Keystone Cops. After 90 years, you would think that directors would have studied the old masters and learned a thing or two, maybe even improved on things a bit. But no, it's as if someone had watched an automobile pioneer build a Duesenberg, and nearly a century later, paid homage and "improved" on the concept by cobbling together a child's wagon with square wheels.

I've enjoyed several of Clooney's movies, I consider him a gifted actor. But very few actors can competently direct themselves; Clint Eastwood notably took a while to get the hang of it. Clooney is clearly at the bottom of a very steep slope. The movie becomes more watchable during the very few times he is out of the frame, but when he's in the picture, he makes himself the centre of attention. In the fight scenes, his mugging is so obnoxious you wish somebody would thump him for real.

If you are making a screwball comedy and want some romance thrown in, you need to develop some chemistry between the male and female leads. Clooney and Zellweger have all the chemistry of pair of dumpsters sitting in a parking lot. No spark, no sizzle, not even a post-mortem twitch. Zellweger, who has also turned out some pretty good movies, must have traded her botox injections for oak tannin, giving a stunningly wooden performance. She might just have pulled off the "tough broad in a man's world" act if just once, while trying to out-testosterone the guys, she had looked into the camera with a little half-smile and twinkle in her eye. But no, she kept her jockstrap cinched up tight to the very end.

Of course, the biggest sin here is that the movie simply isn't funny. Doing stupid things is not the same as slapstick. Doing stupid things very inventively, like the Stooges, or very athletically, like Buster Keaton, can be hilarious. But otherwise it's boring and, well, stupid. I think I got one good laugh out of the entire movie.

Avoid this one. I saw it for free on cable, and still wanted my money back.

Sentiment: negative